DC to publish Watchmen prequel?
#101
DVD Talk Hero
Re: DC to publish Watchmen prequel?
Watchmen is a pure superhero comic while I think Sandman plays in a bigger sandbox. Watchmen is the greatest comic that is actually about superheroes. That is what separates Gaiman from Moore. Gaiman's talents really lie beyond traditional comics and Moore proved serious work could be done within the confines of the standard superhero framework. It took a British writer to create the ultimate expression of an American medium.
#102
Banned by request
Re: DC to publish Watchmen prequel?
Yes, you could say that Watchmen is the greatest superhero comic of all time. However, if I limited myself to comics about superheroes, I'd have stopped reading comics long ago.
Also, I personally prefer Moore's run on Swamp Thing to Watchmen.
Also, I personally prefer Moore's run on Swamp Thing to Watchmen.
#104
DVD Talk Hero
Re: DC to publish Watchmen prequel?
Both Swamp Thing and Miracleman are firmly grounded in superhero comics. Though Moore has done fabulous stuff outside that genre, From Hell might be my personal favorite comic.
#106
DVD Talk Special Edition
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Boston
Posts: 1,902
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: DC to publish Watchmen prequel?
I should also add I think Rick Veitch doesn't get nearly enough credit for not only his run on Swamp Thing but for his weird Super Hero riffs like Bratpack, Maximortal and his just plain weird stuff like "The One"
#107
Banned by request
Re: DC to publish Watchmen prequel?
Miracleman was very interesting, but didn't impress me quite the way Swamp Thing and Watchmen (and Sandman since Gaiman did a run on Miracleman as well) did.
#108
Re: DC to publish Watchmen prequel?
I think Alan Moore made some excellent points about the problems of the BEFORE WATCHMEN spin-offs, such as the original Watchmen being an ensemble piece.
There's plenty of new and original comics being put out all the time. The problem is the market. Even before iPhones, XboxLive, dvd car players, and youtube, the comic industry was on the decline. Since the 40s, comic books were seen as juvenile literature, and the controversy with crime/horror comics and the Comics Code helped cement the public's perception of that. The Direct Market is what saved the industry by having specialty stores cater to aged fanboys who still liked comic books.
Because I doubt that Moore would equate financial success with creative success. Yet it seems like that's what he's implying. Vertigo is still around isn't it? Still putting out original, non-superhero material.
Moore's ABC line up was incredible, but it hardly sold what X-Men or Batman sold at the time.
I think the contrast of colorful superheroes mixed with adult themes was the bigger attraction back then, especially considering it came after THE DARK KNIGHT RETURNS which was very violent, and adult for it's time.
I remember a very original, very well written comic that Epic put out called MOONSHADOW which had a beginning, middle, and end, but probably didn't sell as well because it didn't involve superheroes.
I'm not a big fan of Geoff Johns. I've disliked much of what he's done, but he's done a great job on Green Lantern, and ADDED much to the mythos. I think Moore is being hypocritical here. The same criticism Moore makes could be said of some of his own DC work like The Killing Joke, which was based around an old Silver Age Joker story.
I also think that it's ironic that Moore hails Watchmen as the one work that elevated the industry and then goes on later to say that that this nostalgia adults have for these characters and genre is "arrested development."
Again, I think Alan Moore is a great writer, I think he has a good deal of integrity passing up money or giving it to collaborators instead of just trying to get rich. I think he's one of the few writers that I know of who really take advantage of the medium and try to push it to it's limits. I just don't agree with SOME of what he's said in these recent interviews.
Originally Posted by Alan Moore
All the nasty comments that I was making when I was angry--about the comics industry not having had an idea of its own in the last 40 years and not having sufficient talent anymore to create new ideas--these are very unkind things to say about an entire industry. But, it would seem that DC are really going that extra mile in trying to prove me incontrovertibly right.
Because I doubt that Moore would equate financial success with creative success. Yet it seems like that's what he's implying. Vertigo is still around isn't it? Still putting out original, non-superhero material.
Moore's ABC line up was incredible, but it hardly sold what X-Men or Batman sold at the time.
[You see, part of the problem with all this--and the reason why Watchmen was such an extraordinary book during its time--was that it was constructed upon literary lines. It had a beginning, it had a middle, and it had an end. It wasn't constructed as an endless soap opera that would run until everybody ran out of interest in it. It was deliberately meant to show what comics could do if you applied some of those quite ordinary literary values to them. Like I've said, this was the one book that elevated the comics medium, the comics industry, above the point where it had previously been languishing.
I remember a very original, very well written comic that Epic put out called MOONSHADOW which had a beginning, middle, and end, but probably didn't sell as well because it didn't involve superheroes.
On the issue of those Green Lantern stories that were done based upon an eight page story of mine from 20 years ago: the point I was trying to make there was just about the general uselessness. I wasn't saying that they didn't have the right to do crappy Green Lantern stories based upon something that I wrote--of course they did! I was just trying to point out that it did show a kind of barrenness in contemporary comics, and that these weren't new ideas that they were bringing to it. They were just exploiting a little throwaway story that me and Kevin O'Neill had done all those years ago. And, I was just saying that I didn't think that was a very healthy sign for the industry.
I also think that it's ironic that Moore hails Watchmen as the one work that elevated the industry and then goes on later to say that that this nostalgia adults have for these characters and genre is "arrested development."
Again, I think Alan Moore is a great writer, I think he has a good deal of integrity passing up money or giving it to collaborators instead of just trying to get rich. I think he's one of the few writers that I know of who really take advantage of the medium and try to push it to it's limits. I just don't agree with SOME of what he's said in these recent interviews.
Last edited by brayzie; 03-29-12 at 01:36 AM.
#109
DVD Talk Legend
Re: DC to publish Watchmen prequel?
I don't think anyone should look to Alan Moore for in-depth analysis/history of the comic book industry, however:
To be fair, Moore said that his comments were made "when I was angry" and were "very unkind things to say about an entire industry," which is a very roundabout way of saying he was wrong.
Also, I think his comments about "the comic book industry" were similar to how people make comments like "Hollywood is out of ideas." They're not talking about the art house or indie studios when they make this comment, even if those studios are also located in Hollywood, but the major studios.
Also, his point about DC is an astute one: if they're both creatively and financially successful, why do they feel like they need to exploit a decades-old standalone comic, especially against the wishes of one of the creators?
Watchmen was notable for being an outsized hit, and certainly part of that related to its self contained nature. It's been sold in standard bookstores, and has sold very well for decades. The Dark Knight Returns might've been popular in comic book circles, but it relied on an existing character.
I also think the meta nature of Watchmen helped it appeal to outsiders. It was commenting on the superhero comic moreso than it was being a superhero comic (most characters weren't superpowered). People who perhaps grew up on comics and then moved away from it to more "adult" material could pick it up and still feel "literary."
And while Moonshadow was started before Watchmen and ended before Watchmen did, Watchmen was the first of the to be collected in a trade, in 1987, shortly after the first issue. Moonshadow wasn't released as a trade until 2 years later, which means it was likely released due to Watchmen's success.
I don't think Moore is letting himself off the hook for The Killing Joke. From the interview:
So he's not saying "The Killing Joke was fine, but Green Lantern is wrong," he's saying they're both wrong.
I think what Moore is saying is not that it's arrested development to like the characters and be inspired by them, but they should go and write their own works. It's one thing to be inspired, it's another to go and continue the story on its own. It's akin to fan fiction, which many consider to be a lower form of creative work than original fiction. It's maybe where many people start in their creative endeavors, adapting/expanding on an existing work, but it's a type of writing that people should eventually move on from.
Now, I do think Moore's point here is muddled when he mentions Jules Verne and H.P. Lovecraft writing sequels to an Edgar Allen Poe story. It seems like if the work is very well done, or done by people Moore holds in esteem, it's ok. He does try to distinct the Lovecraft and Verne stories by pointing out they had different titles that didn't reference the original, so it was more a case of being inspired by the original work than attempting to exploit it for profit.
Also, I think his comments about "the comic book industry" were similar to how people make comments like "Hollywood is out of ideas." They're not talking about the art house or indie studios when they make this comment, even if those studios are also located in Hollywood, but the major studios.
Also, his point about DC is an astute one: if they're both creatively and financially successful, why do they feel like they need to exploit a decades-old standalone comic, especially against the wishes of one of the creators?
I think the contrast of colorful superheroes mixed with adult themes was the bigger attraction back then, especially considering it came after THE DARK KNIGHT RETURNS which was very violent, and adult for it's time.
I remember a very original, very well written comic that Epic put out called MOONSHADOW which had a beginning, middle, and end, but probably didn't sell as well because it didn't involve superheroes.
I remember a very original, very well written comic that Epic put out called MOONSHADOW which had a beginning, middle, and end, but probably didn't sell as well because it didn't involve superheroes.
I also think the meta nature of Watchmen helped it appeal to outsiders. It was commenting on the superhero comic moreso than it was being a superhero comic (most characters weren't superpowered). People who perhaps grew up on comics and then moved away from it to more "adult" material could pick it up and still feel "literary."
And while Moonshadow was started before Watchmen and ended before Watchmen did, Watchmen was the first of the to be collected in a trade, in 1987, shortly after the first issue. Moonshadow wasn't released as a trade until 2 years later, which means it was likely released due to Watchmen's success.
I'm not a big fan of Geoff Johns. I've disliked much of what he's done, but he's done a great job on Green Lantern, and ADDED much to the mythos. I think Moore is being hypocritical here. The same criticism Moore makes could be said of some of his own DC work like The Killing Joke, which was based around an old Silver Age Joker story.
Yes, I have taken jobs writing franchise characters in the past. Of course, I did Swamp Thing and loads of stuff, including Superman and Batman. But, I don't do that anymore. All that stuff was my first four or five years in the comics industry, and I hadn't really examined my thinking... My position on all of this has hardened over the years... And then, of course the attitude--and I probably shared in this when I first started working for American comics--the attitude now is that it's just toys in the toy box, isn't it? You get to play with your favorite toys from the DC or Marvel toy box. Yeah, I don't want to do that anymore. Those toys were pried out of the fingers of dead men, and were pried from their families and their children. That's just wrong.
Now, I do think Moore's point here is muddled when he mentions Jules Verne and H.P. Lovecraft writing sequels to an Edgar Allen Poe story. It seems like if the work is very well done, or done by people Moore holds in esteem, it's ok. He does try to distinct the Lovecraft and Verne stories by pointing out they had different titles that didn't reference the original, so it was more a case of being inspired by the original work than attempting to exploit it for profit.
#110
Suspended
Re: DC to publish Watchmen prequel?
The thing that really bothers me about Moore's critique of the way Johns used Moore's Green Lantern stories as a springboard for Blackest Night is that Moore's own story was built in order to explain why Abington Sur was in a spaceship (rather than flying under ring power) in the first Green Lantern story. When you've written a story that relies on picking apart the minutiae of a prior story, you don't really have the right to complain when some other author seizes on the minutiae of your story as the basis for his.
#111
DVD Talk Legend
Re: DC to publish Watchmen prequel?
Again, in the interview, Moore states that he was just as wrong to write his Green Lantern story in the first place, based of a character "pried out of the fingers of dead men" as Johns was to use Moore's story.
#112
Re: DC to publish Watchmen prequel?
Also, his point about DC is an astute one: if they're both creatively and financially successful, why do they feel like they need to exploit a decades-old standalone comic, especially against the wishes of one of the creators?
Watchmen was notable for being an outsized hit, and certainly part of that related to its self contained nature.
It's been sold in standard bookstores, and has sold very well for decades. The Dark Knight Returns might've been popular in comic book circles, but it relied on an existing character.
I know that DKR was reviewed or written about in Rolling Stone and I'm assuming that Watchmen was as well. However, I would need to see how successful it was in getting non-comic book readers to purchase it, meaning crossover appeal.
I also think the meta nature of Watchmen helped it appeal to outsiders. It was commenting on the superhero comic moreso than it was being a superhero comic (most characters weren't superpowered). People who perhaps grew up on comics and then moved away from it to more "adult" material could pick it up and still feel "literary."
And while Moonshadow was started before Watchmen and ended before Watchmen did, Watchmen was the first of the to be collected in a trade, in 1987, shortly after the first issue. Moonshadow wasn't released as a trade until 2 years later, which means it was likely released due to Watchmen's success.
I don't think Moore is letting himself off the hook for The Killing Joke. From the interview:
So he's not saying "The Killing Joke was fine, but Green Lantern is wrong," he's saying they're both wrong.
I think what Moore is saying is not that it's arrested development to like the characters and be inspired by them, but they should go and write their own works. It's one thing to be inspired, it's another to go and continue the story on its own. It's akin to fan fiction, which many consider to be a lower form of creative work than original fiction. It's maybe where many people start in their creative endeavors, adapting/expanding on an existing work, but it's a type of writing that people should eventually move on from.
So he's not saying "The Killing Joke was fine, but Green Lantern is wrong," he's saying they're both wrong.
I think what Moore is saying is not that it's arrested development to like the characters and be inspired by them, but they should go and write their own works. It's one thing to be inspired, it's another to go and continue the story on its own. It's akin to fan fiction, which many consider to be a lower form of creative work than original fiction. It's maybe where many people start in their creative endeavors, adapting/expanding on an existing work, but it's a type of writing that people should eventually move on from.
But yet, he continued to do that even after his first five years in the industry. He went on to write for Awesome Comics, continuing on Supreme, Youngblood, and Glory.
In regards to The Killing Joke and Blackest Night, he criticized DC and the writers of Blackest Night citing lack of originality and calling it a crappy series. Yet, he doesn't say he was being creatively bankrupt or unoriginal, or writing crappy stories about his DC work.
Last edited by brayzie; 03-29-12 at 11:26 PM.
#113
Re: DC to publish Watchmen prequel?
But then he goes on to say that either way, writing these characters is wrong, and it shows a lack of creativity etc, should be respectful to the wishes of the creators...
Yet, has no problem with taking other peoples characters like Wendy from JM Barrie's Peter Pan (which was a self-contained story) and Alice in Wonderland and putting them in a pornographic story. But that's okay because he's doing something completely different with them and making a comment about sexuality and society.
And even if it wasn't okay, they are in the public domain so what now?
But now it's even okay to write a sequel to another writer's story, and keep the them in character, but just as long as you use a different title.
And again, either way it's okay because it's legal.
I'm sorry but he seems all over the place with his rationalizations and reasonings.
Regardless, I still WON'T be purchasing BEFORE WATCHMEN, because I agree with Alan Moore that 1)I feel that these characters won't work very well on their own, and 2)I don't think there's nearly enough creativity to justify a 35-part prequel, and 3) it reeks of desperation on DC's part. Also, JMS's statement about Alan Moore's problem with DC, and the incorrect comparison to his own work-for-hire stuff soured me on the project.
Last edited by brayzie; 03-29-12 at 11:14 PM.
#114
DVD Talk Legend
Re: DC to publish Watchmen prequel?
I didn't read any of these until I'd already reached adulthood. However, I'd heard of Watchmen, and it's known outside of comic book circles. You're correct that it doesn't really help dispel the notion that "comic books = superheroes" that much on its own, but it is thought as a solid entry in the world of comic books. Like, if you're only going to read one comic book or "graphic novel," read that one.
Success creatively and financially do not always go hand in hand. I agree with him when he says that it's a desperate attempt by DC to make some $$$ and bring back some attention. The problem is that comic books have become virtually synonymous with superheroes in the US.
You see, part of the problem with all this--and the reason why Watchmen was such an extraordinary book during its time--was that it was constructed upon literary lines. It had a beginning, it had a middle, and it had an end. It wasn't constructed as an endless soap opera that would run until everybody ran out of interest in it. It was deliberately meant to show what comics could do if you applied some of those quite ordinary literary values to them. Like I've said, this was the one book that elevated the comics medium, the comics industry, above the point where it had previously been languishing. And where, when I had entered the American industry in the early '80s, it was close to death. They were going down the tubes, and they desperately needed the shot in the arm that all of the hype surrounding Watchmen provided for them.
1) Watchmen was extraordinary for its time for being self contained.
2) Watchmen, at the time, singularly elevated the comic book industry.
Now, the 2nd point is probably open for debate, but as for being self contained, he only stated that it was extraordinary for a book to be self-contained at the time, which it was. He didn't say it was unique in being self-contained.
You may have a point on SUPREME being too specifically meta on particular aspect of the comic book industry, but I think that at least some of the meta references in Watchmen were general enough for most people to get.
At one point in the interview and previous ones, Moore says that writing a sequel to Watchmen is wrong because it was meant to be a stand alone story, and explains that difference by comparing it to Swamp Thing, John Constantine, and other traditional DC properties which are expected to be continued on by different writers.
But then he goes on to say that either way, writing these characters is wrong, and it shows a lack of creativity etc, should be respectful to the wishes of the creators...
Yet, has no problem with taking other peoples characters like Wendy from JM Barrie's Peter Pan (which was a self-contained story) and Alice in Wonderland and putting them in a pornographic story. But that's okay because he's doing something completely different with them and making a comment about sexuality and society.
And even if it wasn't okay, they are in the public domain so what now?
But now it's even okay to write a sequel to another writer's story, and keep the them in character, but just as long as you use a different title.
And again, either way it's okay because it's legal.
I'm sorry but he seems all over the place with his rationalizations and reasonings.
But then he goes on to say that either way, writing these characters is wrong, and it shows a lack of creativity etc, should be respectful to the wishes of the creators...
Yet, has no problem with taking other peoples characters like Wendy from JM Barrie's Peter Pan (which was a self-contained story) and Alice in Wonderland and putting them in a pornographic story. But that's okay because he's doing something completely different with them and making a comment about sexuality and society.
And even if it wasn't okay, they are in the public domain so what now?
But now it's even okay to write a sequel to another writer's story, and keep the them in character, but just as long as you use a different title.
And again, either way it's okay because it's legal.
I'm sorry but he seems all over the place with his rationalizations and reasonings.
For Watchmen vs Swamp Thing, etc., it's a case of whether he's personally affronted by the continuation. For Watchmen he is, because he believes that he's rightfully entitled to ownership of the property. For Swamp Thing, he's not, because he went into the job knowing he didn't own the property, and wouldn't own his contributions or control how the property or his own contributions were used when he left.
Then later on in the interview he's discussing the continuation of character/stories in a less personal, more intellectual sense. In that sense, taking another's creation without their approval and continuing it is wrong, at least as far as the way DC goes about it.
He then proceeds to draw distinctions between when it's ok, and when it's not, to borrow or "honorably steal" another's work and expand/adapt/comment on it. In doing so, he's stepping into the thorny issue of how much of a creative work is owned by the creator, and how much is owned by the public that consumes the work.
In Moore's mind, the distinction on whether it's right or wrong seems to fall on the line of whether the "borrowing" was creative/literary in nature, or mercenary. He's ok with the Poe/Verne/Lovecraft thing because he feels the latter two did the sequels for creative or literary purposes; the were inspired by the previous story and wanted to continue it. The mention of the different titles isn't meant to be a loophole, but as a way to illustrate that the sequels were not written merely to capitalize on the success of the previous work(s), or in other words, done for money.
In repurposing characters, this illustrates a more creative goal than simply continuing the characters/story. It also shows a less mercenary goal, since either the characters repurposed are nearly forgotten, meaning there's no existing fanbase to capitalize on, or the repurposing is so different as to place the new work outside the existing fanbase of the story/characters, such as with Lost Girls.
In touching on Public Domain, he is acknowledging that the creative works of one individual do enter the public consciousness, and become part of that societies collective culture. Taking aspects of that creative culture and reusing it is something that has been going on for centuries. Public Domain laws typically make the distinction between private work and public work via a time limit or "expiration date" on private ownership of a work, but distinctions can be made in other ways.
#116
Re: DC to publish Watchmen prequel?
I think his point is that DC hasn't done enough to cultivate creativity in their company, and they're now paying the price financially. Instead of taking the example of Watchmen and taking serious risks, they doubled down on their traditional superhero offerings, and kept people from messing too much with those characters and what they represented. If comics books have become virtually synonymous with superheroes in the US, it's in as much DC's fault as anyone.
.
.
DC has taken creative chances with some of their properties like Truman's HAWKWORLD, Chaykin's take on THE SHADOW, Neil Gaiman's SANDMAN, as well as Morrison's DOOM PATROL and ANIMAL MAN.
WATCHMEN's success is rooted in the Direct Market, which was created for, and supported by, older readers nostalgic for the superhero characters of their youth. A demographic Moore currently criticizes.
In addition to Watchmen, DC was putting out original works like Mike W. Barr and Brian Bollands CAMELOT 3000 in '82, and later Moore's own V For Vendetta, Vigilante, Thriller, are just some off the top of my head.
Then there was the Milestone Media line up which was heavily promoted and featured minority superheroes.
DC also launched Pirhana Press which was non-superhero, creator owned work.
After that Vertigo was another imprint which put out, arguably, more sophisitcated comic books, mostly non-superhero stuff.
Unfortunately none of these titles matched the initial successes of Watchmen, The Dark Knight Returns, or even Marvel's Uncanny X-Men.
Interestingly, after Watchmen and V For Vendetta, Moore followed those up with Batman: The Killing Joke, and proposed Twilight of the Superheroes, which was a big superhero story featuring the entire DCU.
When Image Comics formed in the 90s, Moore chose to continue to do superheroes, doing a nostalgic/satirical take on Marvel Comics of the '60s with his title, 1963 series.
After that, more superhero work when he continued on Rob Liefelds Superman-clone SUPREME and made him even closer to Superman and was very nostalgic in nature.
He then took Liefeld's Youngblood title, which had a superheroes-as-media-celebrities, and made it more like the traditional superhero team, and patterneed it after Wolfman's Teen Titans.
I understand his bitterness because of how he feels he was treated, but he's conveniently ignoring a lot of stronger factors that have contributed to the industry and market environment, as well as disparaging an entire industry and the creative people involved in it while making excuses for his own creative choices.
#117
DVD Talk Legend
Re: DC to publish Watchmen prequel?
It's also important to note that after leaving DC, there's a 5 year period where he didn't write any superhero comics, and only came back to them after his own publishing company Mad Love collapsed. It could be argued that he did superhero comics again because that's the work he could find.
#118
Re: DC to publish Watchmen prequel?
This is the rub: DC has taken some creative chances, but none as successful, and maybe none as big a chance. For example, the majority of titles you listed were revivals of existing characters, and few of them were self-contained.
What's more, they're all late 80s or early 90s titles, with nothing listed in the past decade. That seems telling.
DC WAS doing that at the time, but some of them didn't quite catch on or last. Just look at the ads for DC Comics from the 80s. Lots of non-superhero titles. Camelot 3000 came out '82 and Frank Miller's Ronin came out in '84.
And DC has published many non-traditional superhero work since then in the last decade: Transmetropolitan, The Invisibles, Flex Mentallo, Preacher, 100 Bullets, Y: The Last Man, Fables, Lucifer, and DMZ among the more well known titles.
Watchmen may have originally started with the direct market, but its success extends a lot further than that market, and is part of the reason it's held in high esteem; it broke out of the ghetto.
Watchmen was finished in fall of 1987. Twilight of the Superheroes was proposed in 1987, while The Killing Joke was written and done in 1988. That seems well within a reasonable timespan for Moore to think that DC would return Watchmen to him.
It's not based on existing characters though, and has satirical jabs at a Marvel editor who took credit for a lot of other people's work. It's also not a "traditional" superhero comic, if a little too inside baseball to have mass appeal.
It's also important to note that after leaving DC, there's a 5 year period where he didn't write any superhero comics, and only came back to them after his own publishing company Mad Love collapsed. It could be argued that he did superhero comics again because that's the work he could find.
Alan Moore's own ABC Comics line, with Tom Strong, Promethea, Tomorrow Stories and Top 10 being written by him, failed to sell an average of 50k even. And yet DC/Vertigo's Preacher outsold those titles by about 10k. So that just shows you that even the great Alan Moore can't sell to the audience.
By the 1950s comics had a wide variety of genre's: Horror, Crime, SF, Romance, Western, Superheroes, and Humor. Then some overpublicized moral outrage about corrupting the minds of America's youth helped cement the idea that comics=children's literature. The Comics Code was created and took the successful genre's of Horro and Crime comics off the newstands. Romance and Western's eventually died off on their own, and only superheroes were left, selling poorly though.
There was a resurrgence in superheroes, mostly from Marvel with titles like Spider-man, The Fantastic Four, and The Avengers. But by the 70s comics weren't selling enough and less stores were carrying them. The Direct Market saved comic books but further isolated it from the mainstream. These factors are probably why American comic books still have a stigma attached to them but manga doesn't.
Last edited by brayzie; 04-02-12 at 02:23 AM.
#119
DVD Talk Legend
Re: DC to publish Watchmen prequel?
http://www.seraphemera.org/serapheme...Interview.html
Swamp Thing is only brought up to compare with his feelings about the Watchmen prequels, and Miracleman isn't brought up at all. He also doesn't state that the problem isn't that DC won't do anything radical with existing characters, but that they won't do anything radically original at all.
Moore said that Watchmen was a success and that DC should have tried more new things instead of just putting out Superman/Batman/Green Lantern etc.
DC WAS doing that at the time, but some of them didn't quite catch on or last. Just look at the ads for DC Comics from the 80s. Lots of non-superhero titles. Camelot 3000 came out '82 and Frank Miller's Ronin came out in '84.
And DC has published many non-traditional superhero work since then in the last decade: Transmetropolitan, The Invisibles, Flex Mentallo, Preacher, 100 Bullets, Y: The Last Man, Fables, Lucifer, and DMZ among the more well known titles.
DC WAS doing that at the time, but some of them didn't quite catch on or last. Just look at the ads for DC Comics from the 80s. Lots of non-superhero titles. Camelot 3000 came out '82 and Frank Miller's Ronin came out in '84.
And DC has published many non-traditional superhero work since then in the last decade: Transmetropolitan, The Invisibles, Flex Mentallo, Preacher, 100 Bullets, Y: The Last Man, Fables, Lucifer, and DMZ among the more well known titles.
Maybe he's wrong about the past decade (although Lucifer capitalized off of Sandman, so wasn't terribly risky. Also, Preacher was 1995-2000, Flex Mentallo was 1996, and The Invisibles was 1994-2000, so not this past decade, while Transmetropolitan was 1997-2002, making it barely in this past decade). Moore doesn't read comics anymore, so his viewpoint may be skewed, since probably most of the time he hears about anything happening is when it concerns him or his past work.
As for the readers, I have to say that if you are a reader that just wanted your favorite characters on tap forever, and never cared about the creators, then actually you're probably not the kind of reader that I was looking for. I have a huge respect for my audience. On the occasions when I meet them, they seem, I like to think, to be intelligent and scrupulous people. If people do want to go out and buy these Watchmen prequels, they would be doing me an enormous favor if they would just stop buying my other books. When I think of my audience, I like to have good thoughts and think about how lucky I am to have one that is as intelligent as mine and as moral as mine.
Regardless of being based on existing characters, they're pretty much pseudo versions of Thor, Spider-man, The Fantastic Four, The Hulk, Dr. Strange, and The Avengers. It was a wonderful comic, and regardless of Stan Lee's persona getting skewered, it was about superheroes aimed for the superhero reading audiences, particularly the ones who remember that era. A very marginalized aim for someone who criticizes DC for supposedly not trying to move outside of the realm of superheros.
Also, I think we may be putting words in Moore's mouth when was suggest that he thinks DC and comics should move away from superheros. He doesn't say anything specifically about that in the interview, just the DC should be encouraging and releasing more original work. He could think that there's room in the superhero genre for more original work than what's out there right now.
Also, he may not be talking about financial success either, but rather critical or literary success. It's hard to separate the two, and Moore doesn't make the distinction when talking about the 80s funk or Watchmen's particular shining example
Looking through the interview again, Moore seems to think that DC is doing fine financially, stating "they're a huge corporation. They've got lots of lawyers and infinite amounts of money that they can keep people in court." He also doesn't seem that interested in the financial success of his own works:
The kind of readers who are prepared to turn a blind eye when the people who create their favorite reading material, their favorite characters, are marginalized or put to the wall--that's not the kind of readers I want. So, even if it means a huge drop in sales upon my other work, I would prefer it that way.
#120
Political Exile
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: America
Posts: 957
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
#121
DVD Talk Hero
Re: DC to publish Watchmen prequel?
I think the important lesson from comics in the 1990s was that Flex Mentallo and Fables were all adult and artistic and all, but the X-Men books sold huge numbers of copies of lots of titles. And lookee which book went on to become a profitable movie franchise! The corporate bosses at Warner and Disney aren't going to be all that interested in artistic integrity when they could be prying moneymaking ideas out of dead men's hands.
#122
Re: DC to publish Watchmen prequel?
My favorite Alan Moore works:
Miracleman
Promethea
Supreme:Story of the Year
Watchmen
Judgment Day
1963
In that order. Have yet to read Swamp Thing.
Miracleman
Promethea
Supreme:Story of the Year
Watchmen
Judgment Day
1963
In that order. Have yet to read Swamp Thing.
Last edited by brayzie; 04-06-12 at 03:50 AM.
#123
DVD Talk Legend
#124
Re: DC to publish Watchmen prequel?
Just the ones I really like. I've also read Tom Strong, Tomorrow Stories, LOEG, Smax, and started Neonomicon.
Tom Strong had some fun, really clever stories, but I didn't care for the main cast that much, especially the title character. His personality seemed incredibly bland, even compared to Superman. It was easy to get into Supreme because I knew right away all the references to the Silver Age, and knew that Darius Dax=Lex Luthor, Diana Dane=Lois Lane. But if I hadn't been familiar with Superman, I'd wonder why Darius Dax is trying to kill Supreme since it's not really explained in the comic that well. Even the Silver Age stories that Moore was mimicking/parodying were more nuanced than he remembers.
The problem I had with Tom Strong is that the comic seemed to be a homage to the pulp era of heroes, with a modern twist. But since I'm less familiar with those stories, I wasn't able to enjoy the comic as much. Who's Tom Saveen? Why is he Tom Strong's arch enemy? The "Holy Sock's!" kid, the Fan Club, and the talking ape and robot seemed like nice elements from another era but I didn't care what happened to them.
Tomorrow Stories was very funny and clever, my favorite of the comic being Jack B. Quick. Grey Shirt was cool was written and drawn well but it tried to much to be like The Spirit. Cobweb was average, I didn't like First American at all, or the ink superhero.
Smax was a pretty good story but not WOW.
LOEG was pretty damn good, but later entries seemed more to be self indulgences by Moore to play around with classic literary characters and other peoples works.
Neonomican wasn't that scary, although "The Courtyard," which it's a sequel to, is very good.
Tom Strong had some fun, really clever stories, but I didn't care for the main cast that much, especially the title character. His personality seemed incredibly bland, even compared to Superman. It was easy to get into Supreme because I knew right away all the references to the Silver Age, and knew that Darius Dax=Lex Luthor, Diana Dane=Lois Lane. But if I hadn't been familiar with Superman, I'd wonder why Darius Dax is trying to kill Supreme since it's not really explained in the comic that well. Even the Silver Age stories that Moore was mimicking/parodying were more nuanced than he remembers.
The problem I had with Tom Strong is that the comic seemed to be a homage to the pulp era of heroes, with a modern twist. But since I'm less familiar with those stories, I wasn't able to enjoy the comic as much. Who's Tom Saveen? Why is he Tom Strong's arch enemy? The "Holy Sock's!" kid, the Fan Club, and the talking ape and robot seemed like nice elements from another era but I didn't care what happened to them.
Tomorrow Stories was very funny and clever, my favorite of the comic being Jack B. Quick. Grey Shirt was cool was written and drawn well but it tried to much to be like The Spirit. Cobweb was average, I didn't like First American at all, or the ink superhero.
Smax was a pretty good story but not WOW.
LOEG was pretty damn good, but later entries seemed more to be self indulgences by Moore to play around with classic literary characters and other peoples works.
Neonomican wasn't that scary, although "The Courtyard," which it's a sequel to, is very good.
#125
Suspended
Re: DC to publish Watchmen prequel?