If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Rolling Stone)   An interview with Darwyn Cooke, the man who will make the Watchmen prequels better than the original story   (rollingstone.com) divider line 103
    More: Cool, security guards  
•       •       •

5007 clicks; posted to Geek » on 09 Apr 2012 at 11:05 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



103 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-04-10 04:41:03 AM
shiat, I'm not worshiping Moore here. But there are two competing forces in comics at work here. One side wants to elevate the art form and the other wants to make a buck. There is almost no room for compromise between those two factions. Comparing this to other comics that have had dozens or hundreds of writers over the decades is ridiculous. Watchmen was not just another comic. It wasn't the farking Bible either, but still it sucks to see these corporate goons picking over corpse like this. It shows how little respect they have for their own readers.
 
2012-04-10 04:54:53 AM

YouBWrong: shiat, I'm not worshiping Moore here. But there are two competing forces in comics at work here. One side wants to elevate the art form and the other wants to make a buck. There is almost no room for compromise between those two factions. Comparing this to other comics that have had dozens or hundreds of writers over the decades is ridiculous. Watchmen was not just another comic. It wasn't the farking Bible either, but still it sucks to see these corporate goons picking over corpse like this. It shows how little respect they have for their own readers.


Yeah, but Watchmen was only published because someone thought there'd be profit in it.
 
2012-04-10 05:14:02 AM

optional: Oh, and Moore's done his share of absolute dross. I'm looking at you Black Dossier/Century....


I'm glad I'm not the only one who thought so.
 
2012-04-10 05:16:21 AM

skepticultist: I hate everything about this story.

Watchmen is not about the story, its about the medium. What makes Watchmen so awesome is how "meta" it is, and how it tweaks conventions of the genre to reveal the dark urges underlying them. From what I read in that interview, Darwyn Cooke does not "get" Watchmen. There is no cool story that needs to be told with Watchmen, thats not what those characters are for. Cooke shouldn't be writing this unless he has something important to say about comic books, not just because he has a "cool plot."


^^^^^^^^^^^^^ THIS ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

V for Vendetta (the Movie) sucked but Watchmen will stand the test of time precisely because it is a meta overview of the psychology behind superhero comics that deconstructs the genre while raising the bar for it.

This "prequel" will be a total waste of effort.
 
2012-04-10 05:21:10 AM

devlin carnate: The world will look up and shout "Save us from these crappy money grabs based on this classic tale!".

And I'll whisper "No."


What do you take me for, a movie "geek" background character? I watched a stupid idea for a prequel somehow make the originals worse by association thirty-five minutes ago.

//Phantom Menace was on TV.
//On a serious note, people taking a deconstruction/allegory and deciding that the played-straight adventures of the characters were interesting enough to merit sequels isn't new. I direct you to Godzilla: King of the Monsters, highly artistic allegory for the negative environmental impact of Japanese overfishing. And then, a series of movies about rubber-suited giants playing fisticuffs with a giant moth. Both were farking awesome.
 
2012-04-10 05:47:51 AM

Jim_Callahan: //On a serious note, people taking a deconstruction/allegory and deciding that the played-straight adventures of the characters were interesting enough to merit sequels isn't new. I direct you to Godzilla: King of the Monsters, highly artistic allegory for the negative environmental impact of Japanese overfishing. And then, a series of movies about rubber-suited giants playing fisticuffs with a giant moth. Both were farking awesome.


Destroy All Monsters ( or DAM as it is known) was like kiddie cocaine for me waaaay back in the day.
 
2012-04-10 06:00:12 AM
If Carla Gugino is in it, I'm good.Though a younger actress who somewhat resembles her wouldn't be a deal breaker.
/sorry Carla.
 
2012-04-10 06:10:52 AM

Kurmudgeon: If Carla Gugino is in it, I'm good.Though a younger actress who somewhat resembles her wouldn't be a deal breaker.
/sorry Carla.


I'm sorry, she was terrible in the movie, at least as Old Sally. I loved the movie, but with the exception of Rorschach and Night Owl, the acting was uniformly bad.
 
2012-04-10 06:12:16 AM

FuryOfFirestorm: And why does everyone say "there are no stories to tell"? There's Mothman slowly losing his mind. Silhouette's outing and murder. Hooded Justice & Cap. Metro's relationship and deaths, The Minutemen's battles with Moloch (or previously unseen villians). Silk Spectre's on/off relationship with her rapist/babydaddy, the Comedian. The events that led to the Keane Act. The dissolution of Night Owl & Rorshach's partnership. Maybe Ozymandias made previous attempts to "fix" the world? Lots to work with here.


Those really aren't interesting stories. They were dealt with in enough depth in the original comic. All we really needed to know about them was that they were the tarnished versions of the Golden Age heroes.
 
2012-04-10 06:21:27 AM

Mentat: I loved the movie, but with the exception of Rorschach and Night Owl, the acting was uniformly bad.


Well, there's the problem. You went in expecting acting.
/just sayin...
 
2012-04-10 06:52:15 AM

skepticultist: I hate everything about this story.

Watchmen is not about the story, its about the medium. What makes Watchmen so awesome is how "meta" it is, and how it tweaks conventions of the genre to reveal the dark urges underlying them. From what I read in that interview, Darwyn Cooke does not "get" Watchmen. There is no cool story that needs to be told with Watchmen, thats not what those characters are for. Cooke shouldn't be writing this unless he has something important to say about comic books, not just because he has a "cool plot."


This. My god this.
 
2012-04-10 07:00:19 AM

FirstNationalBastard: Overrated artist writes shiatty sequel: news at 11.

/seriously... what is with the Cooke hype?


DC trying to drum up interest in the prequels I'd imagine.
 
2012-04-10 07:07:23 AM

Mentat: Kurmudgeon: If Carla Gugino is in it, I'm good.Though a younger actress who somewhat resembles her wouldn't be a deal breaker.
/sorry Carla.

I'm sorry, she was terrible in the movie, at least as Old Sally. I loved the movie, but with the exception of Rorschach and Night Owl, the acting was uniformly bad.


I found the acting just fine. Everyone was believable as the character they were playing; that's what an actor needs to accomplish and they accomplished it. In general I'd say Watchmen was one of the better comicbook movies ever made, and that Mr. Snyder showed you can make a good comicbook movie while still being faithful to the source material. My only real quibble with the film was the long fight scene down the prison hallway. It was very easy to tell when the Laurie on screen was Malin Akerman and when it was her stunt double.
 
2012-04-10 07:37:19 AM

optional: YouBWrong: shiat, I'm not worshiping Moore here. But there are two competing forces in comics at work here. One side wants to elevate the art form and the other wants to make a buck. There is almost no room for compromise between those two factions. Comparing this to other comics that have had dozens or hundreds of writers over the decades is ridiculous. Watchmen was not just another comic. It wasn't the farking Bible either, but still it sucks to see these corporate goons picking over corpse like this. It shows how little respect they have for their own readers.

Yeah, but Watchmen was only published because someone thought there'd be profit in it.


I disagree. The publishers at the time were going out on a limb. Sure, They were hoping to at least break even, but to say that it was "only" published to make money is unnecessarily cynical.
 
2012-04-10 08:38:59 AM

Heron: Mentat: Kurmudgeon: If Carla Gugino is in it, I'm good.Though a younger actress who somewhat resembles her wouldn't be a deal breaker.
/sorry Carla.

I'm sorry, she was terrible in the movie, at least as Old Sally. I loved the movie, but with the exception of Rorschach and Night Owl, the acting was uniformly bad.

I found the acting just fine. Everyone was believable as the character they were playing; that's what an actor needs to accomplish and they accomplished it. In general I'd say Watchmen was one of the better comicbook movies ever made, and that Mr. Snyder showed you can make a good comicbook movie while still being faithful to the source material. My only real quibble with the film was the long fight scene down the prison hallway. It was very easy to tell when the Laurie on screen was Malin Akerman and when it was her stunt double.


The gratuitous fark-face part was rather indulgent...
 
2012-04-10 08:43:15 AM
Am I the only one who wants to see Moore's 'Miracle Man' (aka 'Marvel Man') turned into a serious film?
 
2012-04-10 08:58:13 AM

Solon Isonomia: Heron: Mentat: Kurmudgeon: If Carla Gugino is in it, I'm good.Though a younger actress who somewhat resembles her wouldn't be a deal breaker.
/sorry Carla.

I'm sorry, she was terrible in the movie, at least as Old Sally. I loved the movie, but with the exception of Rorschach and Night Owl, the acting was uniformly bad.

I found the acting just fine. Everyone was believable as the character they were playing; that's what an actor needs to accomplish and they accomplished it. In general I'd say Watchmen was one of the better comicbook movies ever made, and that Mr. Snyder showed you can make a good comicbook movie while still being faithful to the source material. My only real quibble with the film was the long fight scene down the prison hallway. It was very easy to tell when the Laurie on screen was Malin Akerman and when it was her stunt double.

The gratuitous fark-face part was rather indulgent...


That's true, but this is Hollywood we're talking about; you always get the orgasm face. I choose to forgive it for keeping in the full nudity and the cumshot-flamethrower visual pun.
 
2012-04-10 09:32:27 AM

YouBWrong: I disagree. The publishers at the time were going out on a limb. Sure, They were hoping to at least break even, but to say that it was "only" published to make money is unnecessarily cynical.


Hoping to break even? A business participates in a commercial venture because they're *hoping* to only break even? That's goofy. The only reason it was developed and released is because enough people though it would be successful at generating a profit that they took a risk on it. And that (the creation/development/release of something for the intent of making money) isn't a bad thing at all.
 
2012-04-10 09:36:41 AM
This long of a thread and no one has even touched on Moore's actual complaint about DC and Watchmen.

Yes, they screwed him over and yes, he has every right to be angry. He'd probably be in court over it except he knows that DC / Warner has a team of flesh eating lawyers that would tie him up for the rest of his life.

Here's the deal, the characters were supposed to be owned by Alan Moore and Dave Gibbons. It was a one time deal, DC was supposed to publish the serialized comic, then the trade, after which rights would revert to Moore / Gibbons. What got them was the wording of the contract. It specified that rights reverted when the book went out of print and of course DC never allowed the book to go out of print.

Now, that seems obvious, in retrospect, but keep in mind, at the time, no comic had ever stayed in print more than a year or two. It just didn't happen.
 
2012-04-10 09:41:53 AM

KPatrickGlover: This long of a thread and no one has even touched on Moore's actual complaint about DC and Watchmen.

Yes, they screwed him over and yes, he has every right to be angry. He'd probably be in court over it except he knows that DC / Warner has a team of flesh eating lawyers that would tie him up for the rest of his life.

Here's the deal, the characters were supposed to be owned by Alan Moore and Dave Gibbons. It was a one time deal, DC was supposed to publish the serialized comic, then the trade, after which rights would revert to Moore / Gibbons. What got them was the wording of the contract. It specified that rights reverted when the book went out of print and of course DC never allowed the book to go out of print.

Now, that seems obvious, in retrospect, but keep in mind, at the time, no comic had ever stayed in print more than a year or two. It just didn't happen.


I doubt it was malicious intent of screwing him over specifically.

Not DC's fault Watchmen became the touchstone of the medium.

Heck, originally he wanted to use the Charlton characters, but DC bailed because they wanted to keep them and told him to create his own, so I doubt it was a planned screw job.
 
2012-04-10 09:58:27 AM
Somewhere Alan Moore is looking for a person. A person to throw through a wall.
 
2012-04-10 09:59:20 AM

rocky_howard: KPatrickGlover: This long of a thread and no one has even touched on Moore's actual complaint about DC and Watchmen.

Yes, they screwed him over and yes, he has every right to be angry. He'd probably be in court over it except he knows that DC / Warner has a team of flesh eating lawyers that would tie him up for the rest of his life.

Here's the deal, the characters were supposed to be owned by Alan Moore and Dave Gibbons. It was a one time deal, DC was supposed to publish the serialized comic, then the trade, after which rights would revert to Moore / Gibbons. What got them was the wording of the contract. It specified that rights reverted when the book went out of print and of course DC never allowed the book to go out of print.

Now, that seems obvious, in retrospect, but keep in mind, at the time, no comic had ever stayed in print more than a year or two. It just didn't happen.

I doubt it was malicious intent of screwing him over specifically.

Not DC's fault Watchmen became the touchstone of the medium.

Heck, originally he wanted to use the Charlton characters, but DC bailed because they wanted to keep them and told him to create his own, so I doubt it was a planned screw job.


Considering DC's decades long history of intentionally screwing over creators, I'm not inclined to give them the benefit of the doubt.

Under the circumstances, any honorable company wishing to preserve its relationships with creators, would have allowed the book to go out of print for a month or two and then renegotiated. But we all know that DC is no honorable company.
 
2012-04-10 10:05:42 AM
I feel the same way about Watchmen prequel books the way I feel about all of those "extended universe" books for video games, sci-fi movies and TV shows. Or sequels to popular novels written by different people once the original authors are dead (such as the Godfather novel continuations or Eoin Colfer's attempt to continue Douglas Adams's H2G2 universe).

They're all cash-grabs designed for hardcore fans, they're rarely up to the standards of the original, and while they make a sound and a fury in pre-production, they often signify nothing in the end.

I used to work in comic book marketing, and none of what DC is doing here is surprising to me. The best thing to do is let your fanboy rage subside and just ignore the Watchmen books, because that's the best way to ensure that the retailers (who actually purchase the books) ignore them too. If you're an opponent of the idea, the best thing that could possibly happen here would be for there to be little to no demand for a second printing. That would help ensure that the series wraps early (or never gets completed, depending upon how badly it fails to make an impression.)

But also recognize that there is a market for these products that will always support them no matter what, because some people can't have too much of a good thing. The problem is that the marketing strategy often relies on riling fans of the original up enough to create controversy so that those who aren't as big of fans will pay attention and add to the launch day sales. (The strategy also relies upon the people making the loudest complaints giving in to the temptation anyhow and further boosting sales.)

If the product isn't a complete disaster, this strategy often even contributes towards the people who spoke out the loudest begrudgingly admitting that the sky isn't falling and that their faithful should support the creative effort, giving it further longevity.

I don't know why, in 2012, people get so idealistic about publishers like DC or Marvel and somehow think they're anything but a business. But everything they do is calculated, and they've already made sales projections and told retailers how big they anticipate these books will be so that retailers will have confidence and order them.
 
2012-04-10 10:08:15 AM
Big. Blue. Dong.
 
2012-04-10 10:15:42 AM

KPatrickGlover: Considering DC's decades long history of intentionally screwing over creators, I'm not inclined to give them the benefit of the doubt.


Yeah because it was the same people, right? They're immortals still managing the company. Still, at any rate, it was Moore's own fault. What was he expecting to happen? Succesful stuff rarely goes out of print. Even less the highest echelon of comics. The only way he could have gotten the rights was if the product wasn't as succesful. Betting against your own success is bad thinking.

Under the circumstances, any honorable company wishing to preserve its relationships with creators, would have allowed the book to go out of print for a month or two and then renegotiated. But we all know that DC is no honorable company.

Yeah, because Marvel is all sunshines, right?

Even if Moore had a fallout with DC, he still previously decided to work with them in lots of stuff.
Guess what was his opinion of Marvel? He vowed to NEVER work with them. Not "again" like with DC, but EVER (Well, save for his short sting at Marvel UK, but it was a different thing).
 
2012-04-10 10:16:43 AM

marius2: That won't be very hard.

 
2012-04-10 10:30:59 AM

rocky_howard: Yeah, because Marvel is all sunshines, right?


No one said any such thing. You sound defensive. Like you took the Cola Wars seriously or something.
 
2012-04-10 10:31:19 AM

rocky_howard: KPatrickGlover: Considering DC's decades long history of intentionally screwing over creators, I'm not inclined to give them the benefit of the doubt.

Yeah because it was the same people, right? They're immortals still managing the company. Still, at any rate, it was Moore's own fault. What was he expecting to happen? Succesful stuff rarely goes out of print. Even less the highest echelon of comics. The only way he could have gotten the rights was if the product wasn't as succesful. Betting against your own success is bad thinking.

Under the circumstances, any honorable company wishing to preserve its relationships with creators, would have allowed the book to go out of print for a month or two and then renegotiated. But we all know that DC is no honorable company.

Yeah, because Marvel is all sunshines, right?

Even if Moore had a fallout with DC, he still previously decided to work with them in lots of stuff.
Guess what was his opinion of Marvel? He vowed to NEVER work with them. Not "again" like with DC, but EVER (Well, save for his short sting at Marvel UK, but it was a different thing).


Who peed in your corn flakes?

When did this become about Marvel? When did anyone even mention Marvel? Or is your argument that it's okay for DC to be a bunch of greedy arrogant pr*cks because Marvel's a bunch of greedy arrogant pr*cks too?
 
2012-04-10 10:39:56 AM

YouBWrong: shiat, I'm not worshiping Moore here. But there are two competing forces in comics at work here. One side wants to elevate the art form and the other wants to make a buck. There is almost no room for compromise between those two factions. Comparing this to other comics that have had dozens or hundreds of writers over the decades is ridiculous. Watchmen was not just another comic. It wasn't the farking Bible either, but still it sucks to see these corporate goons picking over corpse like this. It shows how little respect they have for their own readers.


That's just hipster BS. If it makes money then it can't be art?

Well, by your argument, Watchmen made money and therefore is just another comic.

That DC decided to publish Watchmen in the first place doesn't show respect for the readers?
 
2012-04-10 10:45:23 AM

Heron: Mentat: Kurmudgeon: If Carla Gugino is in it, I'm good.Though a younger actress who somewhat resembles her wouldn't be a deal breaker.
/sorry Carla.

I'm sorry, she was terrible in the movie, at least as Old Sally. I loved the movie, but with the exception of Rorschach and Night Owl, the acting was uniformly bad.

I found the acting just fine. Everyone was believable as the character they were playing; that's what an actor needs to accomplish and they accomplished it. In general I'd say Watchmen was one of the better comicbook movies ever made, and that Mr. Snyder showed you can make a good comicbook movie while still being faithful to the source material. My only real quibble with the film was the long fight scene down the prison hallway. It was very easy to tell when the Laurie on screen was Malin Akerman and when it was her stunt double.


My main beef with the acting was that while Matthew Goode is a talented actor, he was horribly miscast as Adrian Veidt. He didn't work in the role, at all and it threw everything else off in the scenes he was in. Jackie Earle Haley should have gotten awards nominations for Rorschach though, and I'm convinced that Patrick Wilson is one of the most underrated actors working right now.
 
2012-04-10 10:47:04 AM

KPatrickGlover: Who peed in your corn flakes?


Oh please, drop the BS internet tactics. we're just talking.

When did this become about Marvel? When did anyone even mention Marvel? Or is your argument that it's okay for DC to be a bunch of greedy arrogant pr*cks because Marvel's a bunch of greedy arrogant pr*cks too?

No, it's called context.

Marvel and DC control 95% of the market.

If you say "DC isn't a honorable company", what does that mean?
That Marvel is.

if you say "Democrats are liars", what does that mean?
That Republicans aren't.

Now, I know you're probably going to reply with some BS tactic about how saying A is doesn't mean B isn't, but that's not how things work.
 
2012-04-10 11:01:22 AM

rocky_howard: KPatrickGlover: Who peed in your corn flakes?

Oh please, drop the BS internet tactics. we're just talking.

When did this become about Marvel? When did anyone even mention Marvel? Or is your argument that it's okay for DC to be a bunch of greedy arrogant pr*cks because Marvel's a bunch of greedy arrogant pr*cks too?

No, it's called context.

Marvel and DC control 95% of the market.

If you say "DC isn't a honorable company", what does that mean?
That Marvel is.

if you say "Democrats are liars", what does that mean?
That Republicans aren't.

Now, I know you're probably going to reply with some BS tactic about how saying A is doesn't mean B isn't, but that's not how things work.


Fanboy RAGE. That being said, Alan Moore is a pretty cool guy who is not afraid of nothing. My two favorite series of his are Transmetropolitan and the Invisibles.
 
2012-04-10 11:05:43 AM

rocky_howard: KPatrickGlover: Who peed in your corn flakes?

Oh please, drop the BS internet tactics. we're just talking.

When did this become about Marvel? When did anyone even mention Marvel? Or is your argument that it's okay for DC to be a bunch of greedy arrogant pr*cks because Marvel's a bunch of greedy arrogant pr*cks too?

No, it's called context.

Marvel and DC control 95% of the market.

If you say "DC isn't a honorable company", what does that mean?
That Marvel is.

if you say "Democrats are liars", what does that mean?
That Republicans aren't.

Now, I know you're probably going to reply with some BS tactic about how saying A is doesn't mean B isn't, but that's not how things work.


Ok, dude, you're picking a fight with your own imagination. I meant nothing of the sort and any rational person reading my statement read nothing of the sort. You've let your own internal angst bleed over into a completely unrelated situation.

If it makes you feel better, I have exactly the same opinion of corporate Marvel that I have of corporate DC. I didn't mention it because it had nothing to do with the topic at hand, but if it makes you feel better you can change any reference to DC in my original post to "The Comic Industry", I don't care.
 
2012-04-10 11:30:42 AM

PonceAlyosha: Fanboy RAGE. That being said, Alan Moore is a pretty cool guy who is not afraid of nothing. My two favorite series of his are Transmetropolitan and the Invisibles.


Alan Moore himself is going to be more pissed at you than any potential bait biter :p

KPatrickGlover: Ok, dude, you're picking a fight with your own imagination. I meant nothing of the sort and any rational person reading my statement read nothing of the sort. You've let your own internal angst bleed over into a completely unrelated situation.

If it makes you feel better, I have exactly the same opinion of corporate Marvel that I have of corporate DC. I didn't mention it because it had nothing to do with the topic at hand, but if it makes you feel better you can change any reference to DC in my original post to "The Comic Industry", I don't care.


Ti's true. Sorry :)
 
2012-04-10 11:43:51 AM
i255.photobucket.com
 
2012-04-10 11:50:07 AM
img1.fark.net
 
2012-04-10 01:47:25 PM

rocky_howard: If you say "DC isn't a honorable company", what does that mean?
That Marvel is.

if you say "Democrats are liars", what does that mean?
That Republicans aren't.



A swing and a miss. It's not "a BS tactic" to point out that you're failing basic logic. You're saying A is bad therefore B is good. But that makes no sense at all. A and B can BOTH be bad, and there are plenty of times when both are.

Specifically regarding one of your examples... It's like how when I told my dad I was disillusioned with the Republican party and he assumed that meant I was joining the Democrats. That does not follow. One can easily dislike both Republicans AND Democrats, and in fact many people do, myself included.



And as far as this Watchmen sequel goes? DC can farking forget it, I wouldn't read it if they begged me to. I wouldn't even pirate it. How shameless can they get then to pull this shiat out of their asses? In fact it makes me more likely to avoid DC comics as a whole next time I'm in the local comic book store.
 
2012-04-10 01:50:42 PM

I Like Bread: sphere of acceptable risk: Will it have a retarded deus ex machina ending like the original?

Moore: "OK. I wrote myself in a corner with this Larry Sanders: The Comic Book. What to do? Umm... fark it. Giant alien squid."
Idiots: "OH MY GOD UNASSAILABLE GENIUS!"


Did you read a different WATCHMEN than the rest of us? The squid was Oxymandias' machination, a False Flag hoax that was hinted at throughout the entire story. It's why The Comedian was thrown out the window at the beginning.

He didn't paint himself into a corner, he knew it was going to be the ending throughout the series and proved it by dropping hints along the way.

Deus Ex Machina was the ending of BSG, not THE WATCHMEN. No god appeared to right wrongs in Moore's work.

What the hell?
 
2012-04-10 02:03:51 PM

optional: mcmnky: Mentat: Whether this is a good idea or not, I'd stay the hell away from this project.

Why?

Like many, upon first hearing of this project I had a negative reaction.

Then I realized, why not? Why can Watchmen only be written by Moore? How many writers have worked with Superman over the years? Or Batman? Or X-Men, Avengers, Spiderman? Where's the nerd indignation over the coming Dark Knight movie? It won't be written by the original Batman writers.

In fact, Moore worked on Batman and Superman. So those characters are trash? Pulp to be thrown at any writer looking to make some coin, but the Watchmen are holy, never to be touched by any mortal?

They're comic book characters. It's a serial art form. Deal with it.

Is there some accusation of Godfather-style threats? Did DC rip the ideas from head by magic?

How many movies have been made from Moore's work, and how many has he biatched about? Well, fool him once, shame on you. Fool him twice, shame on him. Fool him three times, well, some people just don't learn.

Yes, I know he had issues with DC over money, But are there claims anyone has done anything with his characters they didn't have a right to do? Or only that he wasn't paid enough?

As the joke goes, we've established what he is. It's only a question of price.

Agreed. Moore can be brilliant, but I'm really sick of him biatching and whining about every little thing.

That said, I still think this is a terrible idea. The story's complete and doesn't demand a sequel or a prequel. Plus prequels are generally terrible. But it's not like he's stealing Moore's artistic vision or something.


Not exclusively, no.

Some of the BEST stories told through the comic medium are finite and self-contained. Just to name a few:

Rising Stars
The Watchmen (well until now)
Y The Last Man

The fact of the matter is, The Watchmen needs no sequel, nor prequel. There is nothing to be gained other than money for reopening the story and for it to go nowhere.

And look, I like some of the writers who will be working on it, but I won't read it.

Now I have read serial comics before, and yes I have been entertained, but I don't put open-ended, constantly ret-conned, pointlessly expanding stories on the same platform as finite, self-contained stories with a clear purpose.

Either way, whatever. I won't by it and read it and I won't accept it into what I consider canon. DC can make it, people can buy it and allow it into their canon. No one is really hurt. Meh.
 
2012-04-10 02:10:17 PM
Kurmudgeon:
Mentat: I loved the movie, but with the exception of Rorschach and Night Owl, the acting was uniformly bad.

Well, there's the problem. You went in expecting acting.
/just sayin...


I didn't. I knew who the director was, and how he was very successful with his last already-completely-storyboarded-in-the-graphic-novel film.
 
2012-04-10 02:51:49 PM
Much like how I'm not sure why 300 needs a sequel, I'm not sure why Watchmen needs prequels.

Oh. Wait. Money. Right.
 
2012-04-10 03:09:05 PM

The_one_with_that_guy: Some of the BEST stories told through the comic medium are finite and self-contained. Just to name a few:

Rising Stars
The Watchmen (well until now)
Y The Last Man


So you don't understand the meaning of the word "Serial"?

All of those were published as SERIES of books, not just 1 volume.

The fact that they ended has zero to do with the format.
 
2012-04-10 05:49:26 PM

CMcMahon: Much like how I'm not sure why 300 needs a sequel, I'm not sure why Watchmen needs prequels.

Oh. Wait. Money. Right.


Reminds me of a joke from the 300 RiffTrax. "This is going to make things difficult if they go with the Ocean's 11 style add-one-to-the-number titling for the sequel. Then it's going to be Three-Hundred-Space-Two-Colon-Three-Hundred-One."
 
2012-04-10 05:54:25 PM

rocky_howard: The_one_with_that_guy: Some of the BEST stories told through the comic medium are finite and self-contained. Just to name a few:

Rising Stars
The Watchmen (well until now)
Y The Last Man

So you don't understand the meaning of the word "Serial"?

All of those were published as SERIES of books, not just 1 volume.

The fact that they ended has zero to do with the format.


Not true. All of those examples were written, from day one, with a beginning, a middle and an ending in mind. As opposed to books like Batman or Spider-man, which are open ended soap operas bringing us the latest chapters in the heroes convoluted lives.

It's the same difference in structure as exists between a tv mini-series, say The Stand, and an ongoing TV series, like Star Trek. The Stand may come on over a series of days, broken into episodes, but it's telling a single story, versus the almost endless series of stories a show like Star Trek produces.
 
2012-04-10 06:33:55 PM

I Like Bread: sphere of acceptable risk: Will it have a retarded deus ex machina ending like the original?

Moore: "OK. I wrote myself in a corner with this Larry Sanders: The Comic Book. What to do? Umm... fark it. Giant alien squid."
Idiots: "OH MY GOD UNASSAILABLE GENIUS!"


Um... it seemed to me the ending was planned from the beginning, what with all the kidnapped artists and scientists and whatnot.
 
2012-04-10 07:18:11 PM
Cooke is clear that he is going to tell the story of the Minutemen outside of the few points where the Minutemen intersected with the Watchmen story.

I don't think it's going to have anything seriously to do with Watchmen other than being in the same 'universe', so maybe all outraged fanboys should yank their panties out of the crack.
 
2012-04-10 07:53:30 PM

KPatrickGlover: Not true.


Yes, it is.

All of those examples were written, from day one, with a beginning, a middle and an ending in mind. As opposed to books like Batman or Spider-man, which are open ended soap operas bringing us the latest chapters in the heroes convoluted lives.

It's the same difference in structure as exists between a tv mini-series, say The Stand, and an ongoing TV series, like Star Trek. The Stand may come on over a series of days, broken into episodes, but it's telling a single story, versus the almost endless series of stories a show like Star Trek produces.


Both are serial. Different kind of series but series nonetheless.

It's different from, let's say, Pride of Baghdad which was published as a single book from the beginning.

Also, those Batman and Spider-Man you mention also have miniseries as opposed to ongoing comics (Dark Knight Returns, Spider-Man: Reign, etc). And Batman has also had single books published (Batman: Noel, Batman: Ego, etc)
 
2012-04-10 08:35:25 PM
Relax: this will never get made. Watchmen tanked. Terrible sequels/prequels only get made if the original made big money.


Budget $130 million[1]
Box office $185,258,983[2]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watchmen_%28film%29#Box_office

Watchmen was a great film made average by slavish pandering to fan boys. Who killed Watchmen? The "shot for shot version of the comics OR ELSE" fans did. If they had made a film for everyone who went the second weekend, it would have been one of the best sci-fi movies ever.

Thanks geeks. This is why we cant have nice things.
 
2012-04-10 08:44:30 PM

FourBlackBars: Thanks geeks. This is why we cant have nice things.


Yeah they could have put Ben Affleck and Dane Cook in it and Larry the Cable Guy could have swung through in a cameo and farted and the movie would have made billions.
 
2012-04-10 08:55:06 PM

FourBlackBars: Relax: this will never get made. Watchmen tanked. Terrible sequels/prequels only get made if the original made big money.


Budget $130 million[1]
Box office $185,258,983[2]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watchmen_%28film%29#Box_office

Watchmen was a great film made average by slavish pandering to fan boys. Who killed Watchmen? The "shot for shot version of the comics OR ELSE" fans did. If they had made a film for everyone who went the second weekend, it would have been one of the best sci-fi movies ever.

Thanks geeks. This is why we cant have nice things.


Eh, Watchmen couldn't have really been adapted into a satisfactory film. It's too tied into its own medium. I think the movie was kind of meh, but was probably as good as a Watchmen film could ever hope to be.
 
Displayed 50 of 103 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report