What's the big Deal about Watchmen?
sky...@shell1.tiac.net
Watchmen was voted one of the top stories of the century in Comic Book
Buyers guide. Why? Why was it so good? What was the story about?
I remebmer buyingthe series years ago but quickly lost interest after
partially reqding the first story. Found it boring. Why did everyone
else like it?
thanks
skyking
Brack!
Well, for me it was one of the first stories that ever went beyond the
standard and boring superhero formula (i.e. person with super-powers
goes round fighting crime wherever he sees it) and tried to look at
the dark side of what superheroics meant. It wasnt watered down, and I
still enjoy reading it now.
Of course, just because it was the first of it's kind that I read
doesnt mean it WAS the very first, but it's there.
Brack! [begin anti-spam block] My e-mail address is *not*: <root@[127.0.0.1]> <postm...@1.0.0.127.IN-ADDR.ARPA> <postmaster@[127.0.0.1]> <ab...@mci.net> <MAILER-DAEMON@[127.0.0.1]> <abuse@[127.0.0.1]> <tos...@aol.com> <.@[127.0.0.1]> <..@[127.0.0.1]> UNSUBSCRIBE[end]
Jasonite
> Buyers guide. Why? Why was it so good? What was the story about?
>
> I remebmer buyingthe series years ago but quickly lost interest after
> partially reqding the first story. Found it boring. Why did everyone
> else like it?
>
>
> skyking
*s* Yes, it was so good. It's the single finest comic story I've ever read.
As for why it's so good...hmm, difficult to explain. As Stan Lee put it,
there is "Great characterization, a surprise on every page, and flawless
writing", and that's certainly true. It seems, to me anyway, the the more I
read, the more I was drawn into the story, until at the end I was completely
riveted by the events. And the ending is just incredible! Read it. My second
favorite story of Moore's is V for Vendetta, also highly recommended.
J
The Ministry of Disinformation and Popular Enlightenment
>
>Watchmen was voted one of the top stories of the century in Comic Book
>Buyers guide. Why? Why was it so good? What was the story about?
>
>I remebmer buyingthe series years ago but quickly lost interest after
>partially reqding the first story. Found it boring. Why did everyone
>else like it?
>
>thanks
>
>skyking
While the story has some flaws (particularly the ending, although the
final panel "reveal" is okay by me), the fact that it was so
meticulously plotted and drawn is a big part of its appeal.
In this era when Rob Liefeld can get press coverage for every
half-baked idea of his that never comes to fruition (or worse, does),
Watchmen reminds us that once, long ago, writers who knew how the
write and artists who knew how to draw would take the time to create a
complete world, and inhabit it with compelling, human characters we
actually want to read about.
The fact that people are still talking about it nearly 15 years later
speaks volumes. Check back in in 2014 and see how many people are
asking "What made Rob Liefeld's two-issue return to Cable so good?"
Alan
jayembee
> Watchmen was voted one of the top stories of the century in
> Comic Book Buyers guide. Why? Why was it so good? What was
> the story about?
> I remebmer buyingthe series years ago but quickly lost
> interest after partially reqding the first story. Found it
> boring. Why did everyone else like it?
Whether or not one finds WATCHMEN "boring" probably depends on
what one looks for in a superhero comic. It certainly featured
more of its characters standing around talking than trying to
beat the crap out of each other, and I suppose that someone
might find that boring. But then, many people think 2001: A
SPACE ODYSSEY is boring. Go figure.
At any rate, what Moore & Gibbons did was to take the superhero
genre, pull it apart, examine all the springs and gears, and put
it back together in better shape than it started out in, much
like (to use the obvious simile) a watch repairman. But it's
also more than that...it's also an examination of the entire
medium of comics, done so in such a way that it really can't be
done in any form *but* comics (I know I'm not alone, but all
things considered, I'm rather glad that this never made it to
the movie screen).
Even the approach to the layouts was done with exactitude (in the
"Fearful Symmetry" chapter, note that the entire issue's page
layouts are bilaterally symmetrical from the two-page spread in
the middle of the book on out -- that's the most obvious example).
The appendices in each issue flesh out the characters, and expand
among the themes in the given issue. The series is rich with
allusion (or "Easter eggs", if you prefer to think of it like
that). One could probably do an English paper on each of the 12
issues.
WATCHMEN is a tour de force. I'd be hard pressed to say that it's
the *best* comic series I've ever read (personally, I prefer
Moore's V FOR VENDETTA, to name one), but there is simply nothing
else like it in the field.
What you should do is get a copy of the collected TPB (if money's
an issue, try asking for it for Christmas), and allocate several
hours to sit and *read* it. Don't blow through it like one can
do with most comics. And don't approach it with the mindset that
you're reading a typical superhero comic. Read it slowly,
deliberately. Think about how the characters relate to each
other, how they relate to the "normal folks". Look carefully at
what's going on in the panel backgrounds. It's all in the details.
--- jayembee (Jerry.B...@eds.com)
©1953 Mary J. Boyajian, renewed 1999
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
John E. Petty
>
>Watchmen was voted one of the top stories of the century in Comic Book
>Buyers guide. Why? Why was it so good? What was the story about?
>
>I remebmer buyingthe series years ago but quickly lost interest after
>partially reqding the first story. Found it boring. Why did everyone
>else like it?
>
As one of the people who voted for WATCHMEN in that poll, I'd have to
say that, leaving story and art aside for a moment, this is one of the
most significant comic stories ever published. The whole trend of
"frim and gritty" comics that we're still seeing today is a direct
result of WATCHMEN. The series revolutionized the comics industry.
You need to sit down with the trade paperback and read the whole thing
through at one sitting. This is an extremely complex work, with many
layers and textures that are only apparent when one reads through the
wole work at one sitting. It's amazing the depth that Moore and
Gibbons were able to get into tis book. It's a story about the world
as it might be if superheroes really existed. Sort of like SQUADRON
SUPREME, but on a much grander scale.
As others have said, this book will still be relevant and significant
long after all the little Image-clones currently infesting the market
have been forgotten and gotten jobs in 7-11.
John
Visit the Gallery of Greatness, an on-line comic art Gallery featuring Mister Miracle, Batman, Iron Man and more!
http://www.ravenlimited.com/gallery.htm
Hurricane Season
>
> Watchmen was voted one of the top stories of the century in Comic Book
> Buyers guide. Why? Why was it so good? What was the story about?
>
> I remebmer buyingthe series years ago but quickly lost interest after
> partially reqding the first story. Found it boring. Why did everyone
> else like it?
>
is all true), it is also one of the first comics to incorporate so much
of what make good writing *literature*. From literary allusion to
incredible use of symbolism and foreshadowing, this story can (and has)
been taught in the college classroom.
-------------------------
As a dreamer of dreams and a traveling man, I have chalked up many a mil
(Jimmy Buffett from "Son of a Son of a Sailor")
bwk...@hampshire.edu
substantial story to convincingly suggest that a) superpowered heroes
might not be a blessing and a world in which they exist might not be
better than the one we live in and b) that there just might be something
wrong with people who dress up in costumes and beat up criminals.
I would not, however, go so far as to say it succeeds as
literature. Or, I wouldn't phrase it that broadly. Very little succeeds
as literature. Watchmen is a story which depends in large part on its
audience; that audience, to best appreciate the story, should have some
level of familiarity with the superhero genre. Watchmen is a good
superhero story - but I wouldn't consider it any more than that.
--
-----
Everything in life is just a variation on Calvinball.
Bill Kte'pi http://ktepi.freeservers.com
bwk...@hampshire.edu Home of Superteens!
VertigoDC
>genre, pull it apart, examine all the springs and gears, and put
>it back together in better shape than it started out in, much
>like (to use the obvious simile) a watch repairman.
Actually, I wouldn't say that Moore and Gibbons put the superhero back together
at all. They left it in little pieces. The pieces just stayed there
throughout the 80's and into most of the 90's. I think that now, at the end of
the millenium(and,yes, I know about the "no year 0"thing), people are finally
putting it back together. I think the point when the superhero was , at least
started, to be put back together was JLA #1. It had all the elements of a
classic superheros story with all the new spins one would expect after the
80's. Now, the field's more diversified, there are god-like heroes, ordinary
guy heroes, all sorts of different superheroes for any flavor.
To respond to the original post, I just found it a gripping mystery. As for
all that stuff about taking the su[erhero apart, what really got me was the
mystery of what the hell was going on. The ending was rather disappointing,
though.
Please just call me Mike instead of VertigoDC.
Not all who wander are lost- J.R.R. Tolkien
Michael Dietsch
sent to the cited author.]
In article <7vf37m$m79$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, Jerry.B...@eds.com wrote
>
> Even the approach to the layouts was done with exactitude (in the
> "Fearful Symmetry" chapter, note that the entire issue's page
> layouts are bilaterally symmetrical from the two-page spread in
> the middle of the book on out -- that's the most obvious example).
Well, I'll be damned. The first time I read Watchmen was when DC was
publishing it issue by issue. I don't know how many times I've read it
since then. I'd never noticed the layout of this chapter until now. I
appreciate that you pointed this out.
Michael Dietsch
Michael Thomas Deeley
> Watchmen was voted one of the top stories of the century in Comic Book
> Buyers guide. Why? Why was it so good? What was the story about?
>
> I remebmer buyingthe series years ago but quickly lost interest after
> partially reqding the first story. Found it boring. Why did everyone
> else like it?
>
> thanks
>
> skyking
Well, if you had bothered to reqd the rest of the story, you would have
found:
Origins of super-heroes that could occur in real life.
A man turned into God, but used as a deterrent in the Cold War.
An elaborate plot to unite the world by killing millions.
The fantastic dialogue and plots of Alan Moore.
The creepy, yet smooth, art of Brian Bolland.
And a pirate story that pays homage to Joe Orlando.
As a whole, the book was one of the first mature, intelligent works told
in the genre of super-hero fiction.
Actually, it's hard to explain. It can only be understood.
Michael Thomas Deeley
> > Watchmen was voted one of the top stories of the century in Comic Book
> > Buyers guide. Why? Why was it so good? What was the story about?
> >
> > I remebmer buyingthe series years ago but quickly lost interest after
> > partially reqding the first story. Found it boring. Why did everyone
> > else like it?
> >
> > thanks
> >
> > skyking
>
> *s* Yes, it was so good. It's the single finest comic story I've ever read.
> As for why it's so good...hmm, difficult to explain. As Stan Lee put it,
> there is "Great characterization, a surprise on every page, and flawless
> writing", and that's certainly true. It seems, to me anyway, the the more I
> read, the more I was drawn into the story, until at the end I was completely
> riveted by the events. And the ending is just incredible! Read it. My second
> favorite story of Moore's is V for Vendetta, also highly recommended.
>
> J
This is a good point. Watchmen, V, and the Dark Knight returns are all great
works of graphic fiction. And yet, the cold war themes in each of them seems
to date the books. Dark Knight prominently features president Reagan,
Watchmen's ending is tied to the USA/USSR weapons build up, and V takes place
after a world-wide nuclear holocaust.
My point: Do the Cold War themes and plot elements hurt these stories when
they're read now? I think they do, a little bit. Sure, they're still great,
but they lack a certain 'timeless' quality found in most great works.
Are there any other stories with Cold War themes that were great when they were
new, but those same themes now take away from these stories?
Jeremy Henderson
<hurs...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> <sky...@shell1.tiac.net> wrote:
>>
>> Watchmen was voted one of the top stories of the century in Comic Book
>> Buyers guide. Why? Why was it so good? What was the story about?
>>
>> I remebmer buyingthe series years ago but quickly lost interest after
>> partially reqding the first story. Found it boring. Why did everyone
>> else like it?
>>
>Aside from what everyone else has already said about this book (which
>is all true), it is also one of the first comics to incorporate so much
>of what make good writing *literature*. From literary allusion to
>incredible use of symbolism and foreshadowing, this story can (and has)
>been taught in the college classroom.
>
And more than just it's literary merit, I'd say that Watchmen pushed
the boundaries of comics storytelling in ways that haven't yet been
matched. At their best, comics blend elements found in prose, graphic
arts and film into something completely unique, and Watchmen was more
unique in it's layout than just about any comic ever published.
You Die Joe
<sky...@shell1.tiac.net> wrote in message
news:7ve7v7$f...@news-central.tiac.net...
>
> Watchmen was voted one of the top stories of the century in Comic Book
> Buyers guide. Why? Why was it so good? What was the story about?
>
> I remebmer buyingthe series years ago but quickly lost interest after
> partially reqding the first story. Found it boring. Why did everyone
> else like it?
>
>
It's typical of critical successes in any medium to be boring to a large
number of readers. It's just a property of esoterica, which is where ideas
usually are born and thus is the place that critics look for them.
YDJ
You Die Joe
Michael Thomas Deeley <suicide...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:381B7E7E...@hotmail.com...
> Jasonite wrote:
>
> > > Watchmen was voted one of the top stories of the century in Comic Book
> > > Buyers guide. Why? Why was it so good? What was the story about?
> > >
> > > I remebmer buyingthe series years ago but quickly lost interest after
> > > partially reqding the first story. Found it boring. Why did everyone
> > > else like it?
> > >
TONS! But most of them are specifically dated, like Watchmen, to have taken
place during the Cold War (as opposed to some
update-it-to-the-present-in-your-head nethertime). I'd cite James Bond as a
primary example, but of course nearly any spy fiction of that time would
qualify. It's not really a big deal for me if the story doesn't take place
in the present though--I've encountered many a great story set in Viet Nam,
for instance, and that conflict's been over for decades, as have World War
II and the French Revolution. Watchmen itself is a little more specifically
derived from the post-Cuba cold war, with Nixon merely standing in as a
representative of the military paranoia which continued through Reagan-as
opposed to V which is more inspecific in its global concerns. I guess it
probably does hurt any story which relies on the potential of nuclear war.
It's chilling to think that our fears of that possibility have faded to such
a degree--just because there is no more USSR doesn't mean there aren't nukes
out there to blow us all red...
YDJ
You Die Joe
VertigoDC <vert...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:19991030154052...@ng-cs1.aol.com...
> >At any rate, what Moore & Gibbons did was to take the superhero
> >genre, pull it apart, examine all the springs and gears, and put
> >it back together in better shape than it started out in, much
> >like (to use the obvious simile) a watch repairman.
>
> Actually, I wouldn't say that Moore and Gibbons put the superhero back
together
> at all. They left it in little pieces. The pieces just stayed there
> throughout the 80's and into most of the 90's. I think that now, at the
end of
> the millenium(and,yes, I know about the "no year 0"thing), people are
finally
> putting it back together. I think the point when the superhero was , at
least
> started, to be put back together was JLA #1. It had all the elements of a
> classic superheros story with all the new spins one would expect after the
> 80's. Now, the field's more diversified, there are god-like heroes,
ordinary
> guy heroes, all sorts of different superheroes for any flavor.
I think you're right that Morrison was instrumental in re-forming the
superhero from its deconstructed phase--I would suggest, however, that that
particular work began in THE INVISIBLES rather than JLA. They might be in
plain clothes but it's all superheroic fun in that book.
YDJ
You Die Joe
<bwk...@hampshire.edu> wrote in message news:381b3ee8.0@news...
> Put succinctly, Watchmen worked for me because it was the first
> substantial story to convincingly suggest that a) superpowered heroes
> might not be a blessing and a world in which they exist might not be
> better than the one we live in and b) that there just might be something
> wrong with people who dress up in costumes and beat up criminals.
>
> I would not, however, go so far as to say it succeeds as
> literature. Or, I wouldn't phrase it that broadly. Very little succeeds
> as literature. Watchmen is a story which depends in large part on its
> audience; that audience, to best appreciate the story, should have some
> level of familiarity with the superhero genre. Watchmen is a good
> superhero story - but I wouldn't consider it any more than that
Then it becomes a question of "what is literature?" Of course we can't
really answer that question about WATCHMEN--it's far too soon. But I will
point out that much of what we celebrate as "literature" is actually just
adventure fiction that is old. We read Dickens, and Fenimore Cooper, and
LES MISERABLES. In their day, they were nothing more than WATCHMEN is to
us.
YDJ
You Die Joe
John E. Petty <greenm...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:YBQbODiTp0qu5WiOQNFmuay=qG...@4ax.com...
> On 30 Oct 1999 07:49:59 GMT, <sky...@shell1.tiac.net> wrote:
>
> >
> >Watchmen was voted one of the top stories of the century in Comic Book
> >Buyers guide. Why? Why was it so good? What was the story about?
> >
> >I remebmer buyingthe series years ago but quickly lost interest after
> >partially reqding the first story. Found it boring. Why did everyone
> >else like it?
> >
> say that, leaving story and art aside for a moment, this is one of the
> most significant comic stories ever published. The whole trend of
> "frim and gritty" comics that we're still seeing today is a direct
> result of WATCHMEN. The series revolutionized the comics industry
OKAY... aside from the typo, I would like to know once and for all what
people mean when they use this catchall "grim and gritty." To me it sounds
like "alternative music"--a meaningless phrase used to describe any violent
comic which the reader doesn't like. Was it WATCHMEN? Was it PUNISHER?
Was it NEXUS? Was it STRIKEFORCE: MORITURI? NATHANIEL DUSK? These are all
completely different books. How about that run of JLA in the early eighties
when they fought those animal critters in the gladiator ring? That was
pretty grim, and gritty--yet it predates PUNISHER by a number of years.
Does this phrase mean ANYTHING??? Something to do with color saturation,
maybe?
SPAWN might have come out in the last ten-fifteen years, but so did IMPULSE
and MADMAN and BATMAN ADVENTURES and 'MAZING MAN and LISA COMICS and, well,
all kinds of benevolent stuff. Does "grim and gritty" describe a Raymond
Chandler/pulp detective/film noir style, as it would imply if the phrase
were used in cinema--or does it just mean anything with big guns?
I guess my question is, can we please be more descriptive?
Nothing personal to J. Petty. It was just bubbling up for a while now.
YDJ
sky...@shell1.tiac.net
Lots of people responded to this post. Thanks. But no one really gave a
blow by blow description of what is in the series. Who are the heroes?
Who are the vilians? What is the suspense element? Who kills whom? Do
the good guys win? Are these everyday superheroes or new charachers
created especially for this series? I just wnat to know what the heck
went on to make this such a great series.
thanks for the input
skyking
Michael Thomas Deeley <suicide...@hotmail.com> wrote:
: sky...@shell1.tiac.net wrote:
:> Watchmen was voted one of the top stories of the century in Comic Book
:> Buyers guide. Why? Why was it so good? What was the story about?
:>
:> I remebmer buyingthe series years ago but quickly lost interest after
:> partially reqding the first story. Found it boring. Why did everyone
:> else like it?
:>
:> thanks
Prestorjon
also more than that...it's also an examination of the entire
medium of comics, done so in such a way that it really can't be
done in any form *but* comics (I know I'm not alone, but all
things considered, I'm rather glad that this never made it to
the movie screen).>>
Nah. The whole book is basically a storyboard for a movie. The only problem
would be that you couldn't condense that much stuff into a two hour movie (a
mini-series would be better) and it'd be hard to do the scenes with the kid
reading the comic book.
-----------------
He had been our Destroyer, the doer of things
We dreamed of doing but could not bring ourselves to do,
The fears of years, like a biting whip,
Had cut deep bloody grooves
Across our backs.
-Etheridge Knight
Prestorjon
really answer that question about WATCHMEN--it's far too soon. But I will
point out that much of what we celebrate as "literature" is actually just
adventure fiction that is old. We read Dickens, and Fenimore Cooper, and
LES MISERABLES. In their day, they were nothing more than WATCHMEN is to
us.>>
Agreed. One phrase I love is "this isn't shakespeare". Usually applied to a
piece of pop culture. Well Shakespeare wasn't shakespeare. It was pop culture
entertainment. It's only with time that it's become shrouded in this aura of
sanctity.
Prestorjon
they're read now? I think they do, a little bit. Sure, they're still great,
but they lack a certain 'timeless' quality found in most great works.>>
V yes because as a future history its dated by the fact that we've passsed
beyond the cold war. Watchmen I think works despite that because I, at least,
read it as a period piece.
Prestorjon
a degree--just because there is no more USSR doesn't mean there aren't nukes
out there to blow us all red...>>
Yeah but we don't have the two major nuclear powers staring at each other
across the oceans. All the Nuclear powers are on fairly good terms with each
other (except for India and Pakistan which is where I think the greatest chance
for a nuclear conflict is). In the present climate I think all we have to
worry about is individual or limitied nuclear strikes (like what might happen
in an India-Pakistan war) but not the global killing war we used to fear.
Prestorjon
The copy of Watchmen I read had art by Dave Gibbons.
Prestorjon
blow by blow description of what is in the series. Who are the heroes?
Who are the vilians? What is the suspense element? Who kills whom? Do
the good guys win? Are these everyday superheroes or new charachers
created especially for this series? >>
Well the heroes are essentially the old Quality heroes: Captain Atom, Blue
Beetle, Nightshade, Peacemaker, Question and THunderbolt but with the serial
numbers filed off. Their set in a totally different world from the DCU where
the indtroudction of one godlike super hero in the 1960s changes the world
drastically and leads toward a nuclear confrontation in the 80s. The identity
of the villain is a suprise and one of the major plot points of the series.
> I just wnat to know what the heck
>went on to make this such a great series.
Basically its' Moore and Gibbons approach to the story which made it so great.
Terence Chua
wrote:
> Lots of people responded to this post. Thanks. But no one really gave a
> blow by blow description of what is in the series. Who are the heroes?
> Who are the vilians? What is the suspense element? Who kills whom? Do
> the good guys win? Are these everyday superheroes or new charachers
> created especially for this series? I just wnat to know what the heck
> went on to make this such a great series.
>
> thanks for the input
>
> skyking
It's not your traditional good guys bad guys story, which is why your
questions are hard to answer. However, just to give you some background
to kick you off.
It's 1985, in a world that is not ours.
In this world, costumed heroes have existed since 1939, but the first
metahuman didn't surface until the 1960s, with the advent of Doctor
Manhattan, a being who could basically control atoms. Manhattan's
presence changed the world in many ways. There are various details, but
ones you will notice immediately are: gasoline cars gave way to
electric cars because lithium could be easily synthesized, and the US
is way in ahead in the Cold War because they have a god on their side -
the US won the Vietnam war and Nixon is still President. However,
tensions with the Soviets have reached the point where the world is on
the brink of nuclear war.
Costumed heroes have been outlawed since the signing of the Keene Act
in 1977 following a police strike and riots. The only active heroes are
The Comedian, a Punisher-style vigilante working for the US government,
and Doctor Manhattan, who spends most of his time in research anyway.
The former Silk Spectre, Laurie Jupiter, daughter of the original (a
Black Canary type), is his lover and is kept by the government to keep
Manhattan happy.
Nite Owl, a Blue Beetle/Batman type adventurer, has retired, spending
his evenings chatting with the original Nite Owl of the 1940s, who has
published an autobiography called "Under The Hood". Ozymandias - the
so-called smartest man in the world - retired before the Keene Act and
parlayed his popularity into merchandizing and a corporate empire.
Rorschach, a Question analogue, is still active as a vigilante, and is
hunted by the police who want him for murder.
The murder of the Comedian in his civilian identity sets off the story.
Rorschach discovers that the late Edward Blake was the Comedian and
theorizes that a mask-killer may be on the loose. He begins to contact
the others.
So who killed the Comedian? And for what purpose? Did he find out
something he wasn't supposed to? Are former costumes being targetted?
If so, who will be next? All the while, the nuclear clock, with
tensions in Afghanistan flaring, ticks ever closer to midnight.
That's the basic set-up, without giving too much away, I hope. Read the
series. It's worthwhile.
--
Terence Chua kh...@tim.org
WWW: http://www.khaosworks.org
KhaOS@TinyTIM: telnet://yay.tim.org:5440
"Love ain't a dying art as far as I can see..."
Jeremy Henderson
>A man turned into God, but used as a deterrent in the Cold War.
>An elaborate plot to unite the world by killing millions.
>The fantastic dialogue and plots of Alan Moore.
Just for the record, it was Dave Gibbons, not Brian Bolland. Maybe
you're thinking of The Killing Joke, also by Moore.
Patrick Flanagan
On 31 Oct 1999, Prestorjon wrote:
> <<But it's
> also more than that...it's also an examination of the entire
> medium of comics, done so in such a way that it really can't be
> done in any form *but* comics (I know I'm not alone, but all
> things considered, I'm rather glad that this never made it to
> the movie screen).>>
>
> Nah. The whole book is basically a storyboard for a movie. The only problem
> would be that you couldn't condense that much stuff into a two hour movie (a
> mini-series would be better) and it'd be hard to do the scenes with the kid
> reading the comic book.
So, other than the fact that major portions of it would be sacrificed to
make a movie, it's a movie storyboard. Riiight...
Patrick
***************************************************************************
"We all have our own personal El Guapo, which in this case happens to be
the actual El Guapo."
***************************************************************************
Dale Hicks
<381B7D35...@hotmail.com>...
> sky...@shell1.tiac.net wrote:
>
> > Watchmen was voted one of the top stories of the century in Comic Book
> > Buyers guide. Why? Why was it so good? What was the story about?
> >
> > I remebmer buyingthe series years ago but quickly lost interest after
> > partially reqding the first story. Found it boring. Why did everyone
> > else like it?
>
> found:
>
Where? :)
--
Cranial Crusader
John E. Petty
<zombi...@yahoo.spamnot.com> wrote:
>
>John E. Petty <greenm...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>news:YBQbODiTp0qu5WiOQNFmuay=qG...@4ax.com...
>> On 30 Oct 1999 07:49:59 GMT, <sky...@shell1.tiac.net> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >Watchmen was voted one of the top stories of the century in Comic Book
>> >Buyers guide. Why? Why was it so good? What was the story about?
>> >
>> >I remebmer buyingthe series years ago but quickly lost interest after
>> >partially reqding the first story. Found it boring. Why did everyone
>> >else like it?
>> >
>> As one of the people who voted for WATCHMEN in that poll, I'd have to
>> say that, leaving story and art aside for a moment, this is one of the
>> most significant comic stories ever published. The whole trend of
>> "frim and gritty" comics that we're still seeing today is a direct
>> result of WATCHMEN. The series revolutionized the comics industry
>
>
>OKAY... aside from the typo, I would like to know once and for all what
>people mean when they use this catchall "grim and gritty." To me it sounds
>like "alternative music"--a meaningless phrase used to describe any violent
>comic which the reader doesn't like. Was it WATCHMEN? Was it PUNISHER?
>Was it NEXUS? Was it STRIKEFORCE: MORITURI? NATHANIEL DUSK? These are all
>completely different books. How about that run of JLA in the early eighties
>when they fought those animal critters in the gladiator ring? That was
>pretty grim, and gritty--yet it predates PUNISHER by a number of years.
>Does this phrase mean ANYTHING??? Something to do with color saturation,
>maybe?
>
>SPAWN might have come out in the last ten-fifteen years, but so did IMPULSE
>and MADMAN and BATMAN ADVENTURES and 'MAZING MAN and LISA COMICS and, well,
>all kinds of benevolent stuff. Does "grim and gritty" describe a Raymond
>Chandler/pulp detective/film noir style, as it would imply if the phrase
>were used in cinema--or does it just mean anything with big guns?
>
>I guess my question is, can we please be more descriptive?
>
>Nothing personal to J. Petty. It was just bubbling up for a while now.
>
My take on this is that the term "grim-and-gritty", as applied to
comics, has come to refer to a popular style of storytelling focusing
on bleak, antiheroic, humorless, nihilistic characters. WATCHMEN, IMO,
started this trend, albeit unintentionally. Gibbons and Moore
deconstructed the whole superhero genre, and, in puttng it back
together, exposed its dark side. What was done so well by Moore and
Gibbons was hacked to death by later creators trying to cash in.
Certainly, PUNISHER, in his many incarnations, fits this bill, as does
Miller's DAREDEVIL (an excellent series, BTW), Batman, Hawkman,
Aquaman (since losing his hand), many X-Titles, Spawn, and so on.
"Grim-and-Gritty" to me is typified by the type of hero I wouldn't
want to meet in a dark alley.
Yes, there have been lighter series ('MAZING MAN was an excellent
example), but, for the most part, unfortunately, they haven't
survived. Yes, there are exceptions, but it seems the popular
worldview in comics these days is a bleak one.
As far as being more descriptive, I'm not sure that's necessary. Let's
face it, we all know what "grim-and-gritty" means, just like we all
know what terms like "Silver Age", "retcon", and "Kirbyesque" mean. I
think its a fine descriptor for a late-twentieth century phenomenon.
jayembee
> This is a good point. Watchmen, V, and the Dark Knight returns
> are all great works of graphic fiction. And yet, the cold war
> themes in each of them seems to date the books. Dark Knight
> prominently features president Reagan,
Maybe it's me, but I didn't see the President in TDKR as actually
*being* Ronald Reagan. I saw Miller using the image of Reagan as
artistic shorthand to cue the reader in to the political outlook,
attitude, and utter cluelessness of the character. Not that that
changes the basic theme of your argument, to which I now return...
> Watchmen's ending is tied to the USA/USSR weapons build up, and
> V takes place after a world-wide nuclear holocaust.
> My point: Do the Cold War themes and plot elements hurt these
> stories when they're read now? I think they do, a little bit.
> Sure, they're still great, but they lack a certain 'timeless'
> quality found in most great works.
Nonsense. "Timeless" works are timeless for their themes, not their
settings. MOBY DICK is timeless because of its theme of obsession,
and the fact that it's obviously archaic in its setting (relative
to the present day) doesn't "date" it. Ditto with A TALE OF TWO
CITIES or DON QUIXOTE or ROMEO AND JULIET or whatever work you
care to name.
I think the problem with your point is that you're mistaking the
works' "themes" with "plot elements". The Cold War is not the
theme of any of the three graphic novels you cite. It's merely
the setting, or the props if you will. The themes go far beyond
something as simple as "the Cold War". The fact that we're not
currently on the brink of Nuclear Armageddon like we were 20,
or 30, or 40 years ago is irrelevant. The fact that the human
race is fragmented and divisive and would annihilate itself given
a chance is as relevant now as it was in 1985. All it takes is
one lunatic with a button in arm's reach.
--- jayembee (Jerry.B...@eds.com)
©1953 Mary J. Boyajian, renewed 1999
jayembee
>> My point: Do the Cold War themes and plot elements hurt these
>> stories when they're read now? I think they do, a little bit.
>> Sure, they're still great, but they lack a certain 'timeless'
>> quality found in most great works.
> V yes because as a future history its dated by the fact that
> we've passsed beyond the cold war. Watchmen I think works
> despite that because I, at least, read it as a period piece.
I would be more inclined to believe that (in pure story terms --
I've already posted my feelings about the "timlessness" issue)
WATCHMEN works despite this because it's clearly set in an
alternate universe, while VFV was a projection into the future
of *this* universe (or one close enough to it).
It's the difference between "If it had happened otherwise..."
and "If this goes on..." WATCHMEN is an example of the former,
VFV of the latter.
Still, I'm unconvinced that VFV has lost its effectiveness. One,
because I don't see the Cold War as having much to do with the
story. It was a attack on Thatcherite Britain, and the dangers
of allowing fascism to gain control over our lives by sacrificing
freedom for convenience. Any Cold War aspect to the story was
incidental and irrelevant.
Two, NINETEEN EIGHTY-FOUR has lost none of its power by virtue
of the fact that we're already 15 years beyond the titular year,
and are no longer engaged in the global conflicts that permeated
the backdrop of that novel. And I don't believe that VFV has lost
any of *its* power simply because we're past the time period in
which the background events of the story have taken place.
sky...@shell1.tiac.net
Why not give the whole thing away? Spoil me please. You summary was very
good. I would guess that the series is hard to come by today. My
appetite is now wet. Give me more. I still will read the thing if I can
find it.
skyking
Terence Chua <kh...@tim.org> wrote:
: In article <7vgbsm$s...@news-central.tiac.net>, <sky...@shell1.tiac.net>
jayembee
>> At any rate, what Moore & Gibbons did was to take the superhero
>> genre, pull it apart, examine all the springs and gears, and put
>> it back together in better shape than it started out in, much
>> like (to use the obvious simile) a watch repairman.
> Actually, I wouldn't say that Moore and Gibbons put the superhero
> back together at all. They left it in little pieces. The pieces
> just stayed there throughout the 80's and into most of the 90's.
> I think that now, at the end of the millenium (and,yes, I know
> about the "no year 0" thing), people are finally putting it back
> together. I think the point when the superhero was, at least
> started, to be put back together was JLA #1. It had all the
> elements of a classic superheros story with all the new spins
> one would expect after the 80's.
Now see, Mike, here I completely disagree with your thesis. I don't
believe that the superhero changed at all significantly in the wake
of WATCHMEN. Certainly not *because* of WATCHMEN -- I see Miller's
THE DARK KNIGHT RETURNS has having considerably more influence on
how the genre was shaped in the late 80s/early 90s.
The only comic that I believe had any real transfiguring effect on
the genre was THE AMAZING SPIDER-MAN back in 1961. Up to that point,
superhero comics were almost completely divorced from the reality.
By that I mean that, with the obvious exceptions of the concerns
of WWII, and the Communist "Peril" of the late 40s/early 50s,
superhero comics were pure fantasy. To the point that, for example,
the DC superheroes lived in fictitious cities: Gotham, Metropolis,
Keystone, Midway, et alia. And the characters were, by and large,
one dimensional.
When Stan Lee created Spider-Man (with Steve Ditko) and Fantastic
Four (with Jack Kirby), two things happened: the characters went
from one-dimensionality to two-dimensionality, and they left the
fantasy world and came into ours by virtue of being set in New
York City, a very real place. In the wake of Marvel's Silver Age,
DC also began to change. Characters started becoming more fleshed
out, became more involved with real world social issues -- even
the art started becoming more "realistic". By the end of the
decade, the universes of DC and Marvel were much like the world
outside our window (except for the obvious), moreso than they
ever were before. This trend continued through the 70s and 80s.
WATCHMEN took it to another level. But I don't see that superhero
comics really changed much. Grimmer, grittier, yadda yadda yadda,
but I really don't see that significant a change in the basic
approach. The humor level aside, I don't see that the Justice
League International of 1990 is fundamentally any different than
the Justice League of America of 1970.
What WATCHMEN did was to expand the boundaries of what the genre
could include. It allowed creators to come up with similar ideas,
or even new ways to keep expanding the genre, BUT THESE WERE NOT
REPLACEMENTS FOR WHAT HAD BEEN, JUST ADDITIONS. The mainstream
superhero comics just kept going along the same natural course
of evolution that they'd following since the early 60s.
> Now, the field's more diversified, there are god-like heroes,
> ordinary guy heroes, all sorts of different superheroes for any
> flavor.
Exactly. Without realizing it, you're essentially reiterating
what I had said in my original statement: Moore & Gibbons put
the genre back together after pulling it apart, except now it's
in better shape than it had been before. But it was still the
same thing. To introduce a new metaphor, they took an AM radio,
pulled it apart, monkeyed with it, and put it back together.
Now it gets both AM and FM stations. They didn't take a radio
apart and put it back together as a television. It's still a
radio -- it just now receives a broader range of frequencies.
jayembee
>> But it's also more than that...it's also an examination of
>> the entire medium of comics, done so in such a way that it
>> really can't be done in any form *but* comics (I know I'm
>> not alone, but all things considered, I'm rather glad that
>> this never made it to the movie screen).
> Nah. The whole book is basically a storyboard for a movie.
One could look at it that way, yes. My point, though, is that it
wouldn't have the power as a movie the way it has as a comic. It
would have to be changed to fit the medium in such a way that it
was no longer what it was.
It would be like Scott McCloud taking his book UNDERSTANDING COMICS
and rewriting it as a standard "prose" textbook with occasional
illustrations to, well, "illustrate" his points. But it's a much
richer work by being done *in comics form*. As a "text"book, it
would be just another treatise on comics. But as a comic"book"
itself, it's becomes something greater.
Could WATCHMEN be made into a movie (or yes, a mini-series)? Of
course it could. But it wouldn't work to nearly the degree that
it does as a comic.
jayembee
> My take on this is that the term "grim-and-gritty", as applied
> to comics, has come to refer to a popular style of storytelling
> focusing on bleak, antiheroic, humorless, nihilistic characters.
> WATCHMEN, IMO, started this trend, albeit unintentionally.
> Gibbons and Moore deconstructed the whole superhero genre, and,
> in puttng it back together, exposed its dark side. What was done
> so well by Moore and Gibbons was hacked to death by later creators
> trying to cash in.
Sorry, but I don't agree, because this puts the focus on characters
who are nominally "heroes". The idea of "bleak", "humorless", or
"nihilistic" characters started long before WATCHMEN. The Punisher,
for example, originated in the early 70s, and while he was a *tad*
more mainstream then than now, he was still an antihero, would took
lives without balking. Wolverine was the same. I recall fervent
discussions back in the late 70s among fans about whether Wolvie
really did kill people. Wolfman & Perez also "deconstructed" the
Numero Uno Rule about heroes never taking lives in the NTT arc,
in which the Titans go into space to fight the Citadel. It was
almost unthinkable at the time that anyone calling himself a hero
could justify taking lives, even in wartime, but there it was.
And that's just the ostensible heroes. The villains had taken a
turn for the worse over the course of the 70s. The Joker, while
obviously deranged, was more clownish than frightening until
O'Neil & Adams reinvented him. Same with Two-Face. And Green Goblin's
cold-blooded murder of Gwen Stacy threw everyone for a loop back
in 1971. Miller's original run of DAREDEVIL, long predating
WATCHMEN was also quite brutal. Miller, with his Daredevil and
Batman work, was far more responsible for the "grim-&-gritty"
approach to superheroes than Moore & Gibbons were.
In fact, I believe that the phrase "grim & gritty" came from the
marketing of TDKR. In fact, in the late 80s, when the phrase
started becoming overused, people used to snidely throw in,
after the phrase, something like "Grim & Gritty (tm) Frank Miller".
> Certainly, PUNISHER, in his many incarnations, fits this bill,
> as does Miller's DAREDEVIL (an excellent series, BTW), [...]
Both of which, as I said, predate WATCHMEN. Even Moore himself,
with other creators, had already been farming that particular
ground, with "Marvelman" & "V for Vendetta" in WARRIOR and
"Captain Britain" over at Marvel-UK.
Moore & Gibbons didn't invent "grim & gritty" any more than did
Miller invent the concept of Batman as "the Dark Knight". All
Miller did was bring that idea (which had been around, including
that phrase, for 15 years by that point) to a high-profile comic.
And all Moore & Gibbons did, likewise, was to bring (along with
Miller) the concept of the bleak, nihilistic worldview to the
fore in another high-profile comic. And part of what made WATCHMEN
so high-profile in the first place was Moore's previous work cut
from the same cloth.
jayembee
> Lots of people responded to this post. Thanks. But no one really
> gave a blow by blow description of what is in the series.
That's because: (1) we didn't know that you were looking for such.
You asked what the big deal was, and why everyone loves it so much,
not what it was about. And (2), you really should read it for
yourself to get the "blow by blow".
> Who are the heroes? Who are the vilians?
That's as much the whole point of the story as anything else is.
Who *are* the heroes? Who *are* the villains. The lines blur and
cross. To say anything more is to spoil it.
> What is the suspense element? Who kills whom?
The surface element of suspense is "Who Killed the Comedian?" The
investigation of that crime by Rorschach leads him to believe that
there's a major conspiracy afoot. What that conspiracy's purpose
is and who is behind it forms the basic plot of the series.
> Do the good guys win?
That remains to be seen. *You* decide when you reach the last panel.
> Are these everyday superheroes or new charachers created especially
> for this series?
Both. Neither. Moore's original treatment used the characters that
DC had just acquired from Charlton Comics: Captain Atom, Blue Beetle,
The Question, Nightshade, et alia. When Moore submitted his proposal
for WATCHMEN, the Powers That Be loved the premise of the story,
but realized that it would render those characters they just bought
essentially unusable for future projects. So Moore created a new
set of heroes to replace the Charlton characters, though they still
represent the same archetypes: Doc Manhattan is Captain Atom, Night
Owl is Blue Beetle, Silk Spectre is Nightshade, Rorschach is The
Question, and so forth.
> I just wnat to know what the heck went on to make this such a
> great series.
We actually covered that. You just weren't paying attention. :-)
What makes this a great series isn't the "new or old" status of
the characters, the suspense elements, or the particulars of the
plot. It's *how* the thing is put together that does it. It's
how the series is deeply rooted in the superhero genre at the
same time that it's turning that genre over on its head. It's how
the series manages to be the basic essence of a comic book, while
transcending the medium at the same time.
Terence Chua
<sky...@shell1.tiac.net> wrote:
> Why not give the whole thing away? Spoil me please. You summary was very
> good. I would guess that the series is hard to come by today. My
> appetite is now wet. Give me more. I still will read the thing if I can
> find it.
>
> skyking
Because I'd rather you read it for yourself and be as awed by the
writing and the plot as when I first read it. It was only after
reflection that the ending seemed a bit weak, but that doesn't take
away from the basic idea underlying the book, which was to explore the
actual effects superhumanity would have on the world, something which
until then had not been done before in comics.
It's not difficult to come by. I think the trade paperback is still in
print.
Jerome Chan
<kh...@tim.org> wrote:
> In article <7vh6do$4...@news-central.tiac.net>,
> <sky...@shell1.tiac.net> wrote:
>
> > Why not give the whole thing away? Spoil me please. You summary was very
> > good. I would guess that the series is hard to come by today. My
> > appetite is now wet. Give me more. I still will read the thing if I can
> > find it.
> >
> > skyking
>
> Because I'd rather you read it for yourself and be as awed by the
> writing and the plot as when I first read it. It was only after
> reflection that the ending seemed a bit weak, but that doesn't take
> away from the basic idea underlying the book, which was to explore the
> actual effects superhumanity would have on the world, something which
> until then had not been done before in comics.
>
> It's not difficult to come by. I think the trade paperback is still in
> print.
You should be able to get a copy from Amazon.com or some other internet
book dealer. At least Moore was able to finish this book instead of
letting it rot (Miracle/Marvel Man, V for Vendetta).
---
The Evil Tofu (Insert joke here)
VertigoDC
>superhero from its deconstructed phase--I would suggest, however, that that
>particular work began in THE INVISIBLES rather than JLA. They might be in
>plain clothes but it's all superheroic fun in that book.
I never read Inviisbles, so I can't really comment on it. I'll take your word
for it definitely, it'sd just that JLA was the biggest one I'd been exposed to
(and let's not even go into that whole Heroes Reborn/Return/Run-Out-For-Milk
fiasco;-)
Please just call me Mike instead of VertigoDC.
Not all who wander are lost- J.R.R. Tolkien
John Kenneth Fisher
>I would guess that the series is hard to come by today. My
>appetite is now wet. Give me more. I still will read the thing if I can
>find it.
First off, it's not hard to find at all. Secondly, c'mon. The guy took a
lot of time to write that excellent descrip. Don't be so lazy, man! get
the goddamn book!
--
John K. Fisher, recently released from prison,
and therefore way behind on comics.
Kids, PAY YOUR TRAFFIC TICKETS!!!!
sky...@shell1.tiac.net
without knowing what's is going to happen. It is very unlikely that I can
figure that thing out so why waste the money? Comics are supposed to be
easy to read. Cryptic stuff like Watchemn is not easy to read. I do what
to see why there is such a fuzz about the comic but not to the extent I
will spend hours trying to fiugre stuff out in additon to reading the damn
thing. If it was an easy read like Crisis I would not need a summary to
understand what's happening.
skyking
John Kenneth Fisher <jkfi...@westfieldnetwork.com> wrote:
sky...@shell1.tiac.net
If I read it without knowing what's going on I will quickly get bored like
I did the first time around. If I know what's happening then I will
likely read it. I dont like to try to figure comics out. Comics are
supposed to be straight forward and easy on the brain. I do enough
figuring things out at work. Dont need to do it it home also. I really
like to be spoon fed. Spoon feed me please. Ohteriwise I doubt that I
will go through the trouble or buying and reading this book that is
supposed to be a masterpiece.
skyking
Terence Chua <kh...@tim.org> wrote:
: In article <7vh6do$4...@news-central.tiac.net>,
: <sky...@shell1.tiac.net> wrote:
:> Why not give the whole thing away? Spoil me please. You summary was very
:> good. I would guess that the series is hard to come by today. My
:> appetite is now wet. Give me more. I still will read the thing if I can
:> find it.
:>
:> skyking
: Because I'd rather you read it for yourself and be as awed by the
: writing and the plot as when I first read it. It was only after
: reflection that the ending seemed a bit weak, but that doesn't take
: away from the basic idea underlying the book, which was to explore the
: actual effects superhumanity would have on the world, something which
: until then had not been done before in comics.
: It's not difficult to come by. I think the trade paperback is still in
: print.
: --
Ralf Haring
>
> If I read it without knowing what's going on I will quickly get bored like
> I did the first time around.
But he did tell you what's going on. It starts off as a superhero murder
mystery and then expands to something much greater. The backdrop is a
world in the midst of an escalating Cold War.
> If I know what's happening then I will
> likely read it. I dont like to try to figure comics out. Comics are
> supposed to be straight forward and easy on the brain. I do enough
> figuring things out at work. Dont need to do it it home also.
Do you want all surprise and enjoyment ripped from the book because
someone gives you a detailed summary? If that's what you want, why read
the book?
> I really like to be spoon fed. Spoon feed me please.
I really hope you're kidding here.
> Ohteriwise I doubt that I
> will go through the trouble or buying and reading this book that is
> supposed to be a masterpiece.
<shrug> It'd be our loss, but it's your decision and your money.
///
Ralf (. .) Haring
|-------oOO-(_)-OOo-------|
| Kilroy is watching YOU! |
|-------------------------|
Jerome Chan
> I explained in another post why it is unlike.ly I will buy the book
> without knowing what's is going to happen. It is very unlikely that I can
> figure that thing out so why waste the money? Comics are supposed to be
> easy to read. Cryptic stuff like Watchemn is not easy to read. I do what
> to see why there is such a fuzz about the comic but not to the extent I
> will spend hours trying to fiugre stuff out in additon to reading the damn
> thing. If it was an easy read like Crisis I would not need a summary to
> understand what's happening.
>
> skyking
>
Go and get some Dilberts. :)
John Kenneth Fisher
Or you could try it first before giving up. Jesus.
--
John K. Fisher
Anyone else notice that with the clocks going back,
this could be called The Long Halloween?
Sorry, sorry
sky...@shell1.tiac.net
That is exactly what I want. A detailed summary would help to explain
things. It is easy to miss some key points over 12 issues. Plus I wont
remember everything as I go along anyway. A summary would be a supplement
that would help a great deal. It wouldnt spoinl a thing.
skyking
Ralf Haring <ra...@duke.edu> wrote:
: Do you want all surprise and enjoyment ripped from the book because
John Kenneth Fisher
>Comics are supposed to be straight forward and easy on the brain.
Comics are 'supposed to do' what the author of that particular issue
intended it to do. being "easy on the brain" is not necessarily part of
that.
>I dont like to try to figure comics out.
That is, of course, your choice as a comics reader. But if that is your
goal, don't read Alan Moore and be critical because YOU don't want to try
to follow the deeper themes.
sky...@shell1.tiac.net
I did try reading it when it frist came out. Didnt even make it through
the first issue.
skyking
John Kenneth Fisher <jkfi...@westfieldnetwork.com> wrote:
: In article <7vi5d5$f...@news-central.tiac.net>, <sky...@shell1.tiac.net> wrote:
:>I explained in another post why it is unlike.ly I will buy the book
:>without knowing what's is going to happen. It is very unlikely that I can
:>figure that thing out so why waste the money? Comics are supposed to be
:>easy to read. Cryptic stuff like Watchemn is not easy to read. I do what
:>to see why there is such a fuzz about the comic but not to the extent I
:>will spend hours trying to fiugre stuff out in additon to reading the damn
:>thing. If it was an easy read like Crisis I would not need a summary to
:>understand what's happening.
: Or you could try it first before giving up. Jesus.
: --
John Kenneth Fisher
>That is exactly what I want. A detailed summary would help to explain
>things. It is easy to miss some key points over 12 issues. Plus I wont
>remember everything as I go along anyway. A summary would be a supplement
>that would help a great deal. It wouldnt spoinl a thing.
(sigh). That's just sad.
Anyway, I think I once saw a 'companion' pointing out deeper recurring
stuff, etc. online. Anyone know where that was? It might help our friend
here.
You Die Joe
Prestorjon <prest...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:19991031230348...@ng-ft1.aol.com...
> <<One could look at it that way, yes. My point, though, is that it
> wouldn't have the power as a movie the way it has as a comic. It
> would have to be changed to fit the medium in such a way that it
> was no longer what it was.>>
>
the
> screen is the kid reading the comic book
You do know that there were four pages of text at the end of every issue,
right? That was part of it. The back covers were part of it. The
vertical/horizontal page flow is part of it. It's not like the book's major
content couldn't be used as a storyboard--for a movie composed at a tall
aspect ratio--but there's more that would have to go than just the Black
Freighter.
YDJ
You Die Joe
jayembee <Jerry.B...@eds.com> wrote in message
news:7vips3$2ka$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> evil...@rocketmail.com (Jerome Chan) wrote:
>
> > At least Moore was able to finish this book instead of
> > letting it rot (Miracle/Marvel Man, V for Vendetta).
>
>
> Moore finished both of those series. DC reprinted the parts that
> appeared in WARRIOR, and Moore & Lloyd completed the story, all
> in a 10-issue series that was reprinted in TPB.
>
> As for Miracleman, it was a long, rocky road, but Moore finished
> the story he set out to tell by #15. What was "left to rot" was
> the continuation by Neil Gaiman and Mark Buckingham
Yes, quite so! I almost wish they hadn't bothered to start "The Silver Age"
if they were only gonna do two of the things. It was rude!
YDJ
You Die Joe
<sky...@shell1.tiac.net> wrote in message
news:7vgbsm$s...@news-central.tiac.net...
>
> Lots of people responded to this post. Thanks. But no one really gave a
> Who are the vilians? What is the suspense element? Who kills whom? Do
> the good guys win? Are these everyday superheroes or new charachers
> created especially for this series? I just wnat to know what the heck
> went on to make this such a great series.
I suggest you READ IT! Then you will know! If you're here, you read
comics--then read them, for chrissakes!
YDJ
Terence Chua
<evil...@rocketmail.com> wrote:
> You should be able to get a copy from Amazon.com or some other internet
> book dealer. At least Moore was able to finish this book instead of
> letting it rot (Miracle/Marvel Man, V for Vendetta).
Not really true - he did finish both of them eventually.
Now, if you want an example of a book he left to rot but is a damn
shame he'll never get around to completing it, cite The Ballad Of Halo
Jones.
jayembee
> At least Moore was able to finish this book instead of
> letting it rot (Miracle/Marvel Man, V for Vendetta).
To that I say, "What rot?" Or perhaps, "What rot!"
Moore finished both of those series. DC reprinted the parts that
appeared in WARRIOR, and Moore & Lloyd completed the story, all
in a 10-issue series that was reprinted in TPB.
As for Miracleman, it was a long, rocky road, but Moore finished
the story he set out to tell by #15. What was "left to rot" was
the continuation by Neil Gaiman and Mark Buckingham.
jayembee
<sky...@shell1.tiac.net> wrote:
>> I would guess that the series is hard to come by today. My
>> appetite is now wet. Give me more. I still will read the
>> thing if I can find it.
> First off, it's not hard to find at all. Secondly, c'mon.
> The guy took a lot of time to write that excellent descrip.
> Don't be so lazy, man! get the goddamn book!
Besides, as I've said before, it's not the plot itself that makes
the book what it is, but the presentation. No synopsis (even with
spoilers) can hope to give you even a semblence of an idea of the
novel's worth. It would be like trying to understand what makes
2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY such a magnificent film by reading the
blurbs on the back of the video box.
Terence Chua
> If I read it without knowing what's going on I will quickly get bored like
> I did the first time around. If I know what's happening then I will
> likely read it. I dont like to try to figure comics out. Comics are
> supposed to be straight forward and easy on the brain. I do enough
> figuring things out at work. Dont need to do it it home also. I really
> like to be spoon fed. Spoon feed me please. Ohteriwise I doubt that I
> will go through the trouble or buying and reading this book that is
> supposed to be a masterpiece.
>
If you want the Cliff's Notes, don't come looking to us, or to me,
then, because I find that attitude unaccountably lazy, and to be frank,
if that's your attitude towards comic books, then don't bother to read
Watchmen. Try back issues of Lobo instead.
Perhaps you might want to consult the annotations at
http://www.msu.edu/%7Ewhitero2/watchmen.html or the Internet companion
to Watchmen at http://raven.ubalt.edu/staff/moulthrop/hypertexts/wm/
Dale Hicks
>
> That is exactly what I want. A detailed summary would help to explain
> things. It is easy to miss some key points over 12 issues. Plus I wont
> remember everything as I go along anyway. A summary would be a supplement
> that would help a great deal. It wouldnt spoinl a thing.
Read the book. It's only twelve issues, just a few hours of a
particularly boring weekend that you lose. And as such, you get
to enjoy the visceral feelings that come with unknitting a mystery.
Once you appreciate the great surface feel of the book, then you
can turn to the annotations at
http://theory.lcs.mit.edu/~wald/watchmen-index.html
for more detail, and refer to these as you read the book. This
gives you an idea of the depth that the creators went to on this
book.
After that experience, then you can go and peruse the discussions
that were held on net.comics(?), with tyg, jayembee, Maroney and the
others (Moriarty, Zwieg, etc.) which are archived at
ftp://ftp.white.toronto.edu/pub/comics/watchmen/
These prolly work better by reading them, then referring to the
TPB for specifics. Some of it is really reaching, like a ninth
grader searching for depth for an essay. Other bits are insightful
pieces that didn't make it into the annotations.
Finally, there are a few corrections/additions that I came up with
(or maybe distilled from the discussions, I don't remember).
I emailed Goldfarb after writing the small piece, but received
no reply. I'll post the file if I ever find it again.
--
Cranial Crusader dgh...@bellsouth.net
Dale Hicks
>
> Finally, there are a few corrections/additions that I came up with
> (or maybe distilled from the discussions, I don't remember).
I meant Atkinson, sorry.
--
Cranial Crusader dgh...@bellsouth.net
Prestorjon
of the fact that we're already 15 years beyond the titular year,>>
Actually I think it has. Not because we've really moved beyond the year but
because we've moved beyond the communist/fascist society Orwell described.
I've personally always preffered Brave New World and I thinko that despite
being written before "1984" it holds up much better and is still timely today.
dealing with stuff such as virtual reality, drugs, and genetic engineering.
-----------------
He had been our Destroyer, the doer of things
We dreamed of doing but could not bring ourselves to do,
The fears of years, like a biting whip,
Had cut deep bloody grooves
Across our backs.
-Etheridge Knight
Prestorjon
make a movie, it's a movie storyboard. Riiight...>>
Yeah. With the exception of the scenes with the kid reading the comic book
there is nothing in Watchmen that I couldn't film exactly as seen in the comic.
Now you couldn't put all that in a commercially viable movie length but thats
another story.
Prestorjon
wouldn't have the power as a movie the way it has as a comic. It
would have to be changed to fit the medium in such a way that it
was no longer what it was.>>
How do you figure? The only part that couldn't be translated directly to the
screen is the kid reading the comic book.
Jeremy B
<suicide...@hotmail.com> writes:
>The creepy, yet smooth, art of Brian Bolland.
Brian Bolland would be flattered, but Dave Gibbons is the one who actually
drew the darned thing.
Jeremy B
"Oh, to be young again. And also a robot." -- Prof. Hubert Farnsworth
WWBBD?
Aaron Michael Newton
: figure that thing out so why waste the money? Comics are supposed to be
: easy to read. Cryptic stuff like Watchemn is not easy to read. I do what
: to see why there is such a fuzz about the comic but not to the extent I
... okay, stop. If you are looking for material that is easy on the brain,
I suggest you forget Watchmen completely. It's not like the book is in
another language. If you read it (I mean read it, not just look at pictures)
you will understand it.
-Aaron
--
Aaron Newton / amne...@homer.louisville.edu / 1:1 (TINTC) <*> IRC:FigNewton
mg
> Yeah. With the exception of the scenes with the kid reading the comic
book
> there is nothing in Watchmen that I couldn't film exactly as seen in the
comic.
> Now you couldn't put all that in a commercially viable movie length but
thats
> another story.
Maybe but would a film company follow the comic? A unused movie script I
saw completely changed the ending of the story.
Killans - First And Last And Always
<sky...@shell1.tiac.net> wrote:
>I explained in another post why it is unlike.ly I will buy the book
>without knowing what's is going to happen. It is very unlikely that I can
>easy to read. Cryptic stuff like Watchemn is not easy to read.
It's written in plain English, and is drawn beautifully clearly by Dave
Gibbons. It's *very* easy to read.
Mike
--
Mike Collins
mcol...@nyx.net
Prestorjon
right? That was part of it.>>
Yeah but that was extra material to me and not integral to the story.
<<The back covers were part of it.>>
Oh please. Next you'll say that the staples and the papaer grain are part of
it. If you really want all that art realesae them as posters or have them as
frontspieces to the various episodes of the series (which is the only way it
could work. You couldn't do it as a feature film without taking out a lot).
<<It's not like the book's major
content couldn't be used as a storyboard--for a movie composed at a tall
aspect ratio--but there's more that would have to go than just the Black
Freighter.>>
Not really. Okay you've got me on the text pieces but I've always considered
them extras to the main story.
Michael Thomas Deeley
> <<Two, NINETEEN EIGHTY-FOUR has lost none of its power by virtue
> of the fact that we're already 15 years beyond the titular year,>>
>
> Actually I think it has. Not because we've really moved beyond the year but
> because we've moved beyond the communist/fascist society Orwell described.
> I've personally always preffered Brave New World and I thinko that despite
> being written before "1984" it holds up much better and is still timely today.
> dealing with stuff such as virtual reality, drugs, and genetic engineering.
>
> -----------------
True. But a fascist society can come about even in a democracy. If people
continue to surrender their rights in exchange for "security" and "order", some
person or group will exploit those feelings and increase their own power.
Rich Johnston
says...
>
><<You do know that there were four pages of text at the end of every issue,
>right? That was part of it.>>
>
>Yeah but that was extra material to me and not integral to the story.
Hmmm. no. There's stuff there that is integral to building up the story,
especially the 'arrival'.
>
><<The back covers were part of it.>>
>Oh please. Next you'll say that the staples and the papaer grain are part of
>it.
No, the front covers were always the first panel and the back covers were the
countdown. Good sense of forboding.
If you really want all that art realesae them as posters or have them as
>frontspieces to the various episodes of the series (which is the only way it
>could work. You couldn't do it as a feature film without taking out a lot).
>
><<It's not like the book's major
>content couldn't be used as a storyboard--for a movie composed at a tall
>aspect ratio--but there's more that would have to go than just the Black
>Freighter.>>
>Not really. Okay you've got me on the text pieces but I've always considered
>them extras to the main story.
The text pages, however, could be done. reinterpreted as video adaptations for
the text pieces perhaps...
Rich Johnston
twis...@hotmail.com
http://www.twistandshoutcomics.com
Ramblings '99: The oldest internet comics news/rumour column.
Rich Johnston
>> Yeah. With the exception of the scenes with the kid reading the comic
>book
>> there is nothing in Watchmen that I couldn't film exactly as seen in the
>comic.
>> Now you couldn't put all that in a commercially viable movie length but
>thats
>> another story.
There are tricks Moore does that would be... interesting to accomplish. The beat
of the neon light for example in Tyger, Tyger. Or the way he often interprets a
scene as frozen, while never portraying it as such because it's part of an
ongoing scene that doesn't freeze.
And things like the sugar trail would be far more obvious... their movement
giving them away.
Rich Johnston.
buffer
buffer
buffer
Prestorjon
especially the 'arrival'.>>
Hmmm. no. There's stuff that adds to the story certainly but there's nothing
in there thats necesary reading to understand the story.
>No, the front covers were always the first panel and the back covers were the
>countdown.
Easily solved. SInce the front page was always the first panel it's going to
be the first shot. The countdown is easily done by a shot of a watch at the
end of the episode.
>The text pages, however, could be done. reinterpreted as video adaptations
>for
>the text pieces perhaps...
Maybe but I don't see how. It
d be too much to put in there.
NYSteve11
>nothing
>in there thats necesary reading to understand the story.
I suppose not if you're being particularly rigid. For that matter you could
probably take out half of the panels too. The words could DEFINITELY be cut
down. Why say "hrm", when you can say "h"!!!!
In fact you could fit the basic story in a page if you really tried.
But then you'd have a Hostess ad.
>Maybe but I don't see how. It
>d be too much to put in there.
Never be limited to your own imagination.
>He had been our Destroyer, the doer of things
>We dreamed of doing but could not bring ourselves to do,
>The fears of years, like a biting whip,
>Had cut deep bloody grooves
>Across our backs.
> -Etheridge Knight
Ugh. Is this from an open mike night?
Steve Wacker
choc-o-dile
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
If you're in New York come by and see the city's only live comic book!!!
Ka-Baam!!
Fridays. October 15-November 19th.
Surf Reality. 172 Allen Street
http://www.yesand.com/kabaam
David!
>
> True. But a fascist society can come about even in a democracy. If people
> continue to surrender their rights in exchange for "security" and "order", some
> person or group will exploit those feelings and increase their own power.
The far right is definitely on the rise once
again in Europe, and the British media seem
to be mildly concerned about it, but not enough
to create a huge hoo-ha.
David
--
Random out of context quote:
"God is Alan Titchmarsh"
Trevor Barrie
NYSteve11 <nyst...@aol.com> wrote:
>>Hmmm. no. There's stuff that adds to the story certainly but there's
>>nothing
>>in there thats necesary reading to understand the story.
>
>I suppose not if you're being particularly rigid. For that matter you could
>probably take out half of the panels too. The words could DEFINITELY be cut
>down. Why say "hrm", when you can say "h"!!!!
>
>In fact you could fit the basic story in a page if you really tried.
>
>But then you'd have a Hostess ad.
Whoah.
That would be the COOLEST THING EVER. I mean, I thought "Turnover Turncoats"
was great, but Watchmen-as-Hostess-ad would completely blow it away.
The only tricky part would be how to work fruit pies into the ending.
[SPOILERS for Watchmen]
The way I see it there are two possibilities:
1) Rorschach and Night Owl use fruit pies to defeat Adrian.
2) Change Adrian's plot so that instead of the alien thing, he throws fruit
pies to the world leaders distracting them from their nuclear escalation
long enough to allow him to usher in paradise.
I definitely prefer 2... it involves fewer changes to the storyline and is
less obvious. (Although there are some interesting variations on 1... have
them use the pies to bribe the faux alien into killing Adrian instead of
half of New York.)
[Follow-ups set to .misc, as I don't think this thread has touched on the
DCU yet.]
Yngvar Folling
prest...@aol.com (Prestorjon) wrote:
> Agreed. One phrase I love is "this isn't shakespeare". Usually applied to a
> piece of pop culture. Well Shakespeare wasn't shakespeare. It was pop culture
> entertainment. It's only with time that it's become shrouded in this aura of
> sanctity.
OK, so how long until people say "This isn't Liefeld"?
Yngvar
epikt...@my-deja.com
"You Die Joe" <zombi...@yahoo.spamnot.com> wrote:
>
> jayembee <Jerry.B...@eds.com> wrote in message
> news:7vips3$2ka$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> >
> > > At least Moore was able to finish this book instead of
> > > letting it rot (Miracle/Marvel Man, V for Vendetta).
> >
> > To that I say, "What rot?" Or perhaps, "What rot!"
> >
> > Moore finished both of those series. DC reprinted the parts that
> > appeared in WARRIOR, and Moore & Lloyd completed the story, all
> > in a 10-issue series that was reprinted in TPB.
> >
> > As for Miracleman, it was a long, rocky road, but Moore finished
> > the story he set out to tell by #15. What was "left to rot" was
>
> Yes, quite so! I almost wish they hadn't bothered to start "The
Silver Age"
> if they were only gonna do two of the things. It was rude!
>
> YDJ
>
>
I can't see that it's Gaiman and Buckingham's fault. They didn't send
Eclipse into bankruptcy, they didn't tie up the rights to Miracleman.
They aren't Todd MacFarlane (who currently co-owns the rights).
According to gaiman and Buckingham MM 25 was finished 6 years ago,
lettered and all.
pikt
Alexx S Kay
benefit of all, oh, half-dozen people on the net who'll enjoy this
thread)...
I was thinking the other day of various comparisons between Neil Gaiman
and Shakespeare (both creators in popular art forms that, prior to
them, had been thought of as disposable non-art; both good at pleasing
both the intellectuals and the 'groundlings'). But I had previously
heard some similar discussions comparing Shakespeare with Alan Moore.
Obviously they can't *both* be Shakespeare. So if Gaiman is
Shakespeare, who's Moore? Earlier writer, somewhat more highbrow, more
scandalous life-style, inspirational to the next generation... Alan
Moore must be Christopher Marlowe!
How far can we go with this pairing of current British comic writers
and Elizabethan playwrights? Well, Warren Ellis is part of the next
generation, and he's known for his vicious satires - he must be Ben
Jonson. Meanwhile Garth Ennis, with his love for Grand Guignol, is a
good fit for John Ford.
We can also go in the other direction. Robert Greene was known for his
great quantity of work, though not particularly for its quality; maybe
Alan Grant? Thomas Middleton had very incisive psychological insights,
but was also known for extreme misogynism - Dave Sim? (I know,
Canadian, not British, but too good a match otherwise).
Anyone else out there want to play? If there's an Elizabethan
equivalent to Grant Morrison, I want to look up their work :-)
Alexx Kay
Junior Designer, Irrational Games
Opinions expressed are my own and not necessarily those of my employers
Al...@world.std.com
http://world.std.com/~alexx
[On the limitation of the length of a comic-book story:]
"Really, it isn't so much length as what you do with it. I've been
telling myself this since puberty and have come to see that it
contains great wisdom."
-- Alan Moore in correspondence with Dave Sim about _From Hell_
Brenda
Alexx S Kay wrote:
You know, hon, you need a life.
Brenda
--
---------
Brenda W. Clough, author of HOW LIKE A GOD, from Tor Books
http://www.sff.net/people/Brenda/
Ramhog
> I was thinking the other day of various comparisons between Neil Gaiman
> and Shakespeare (both creators in popular art forms that, prior to
> them, had been thought of as disposable non-art; both good at pleasing
> both the intellectuals and the 'groundlings'). But I had previously
> heard some similar discussions comparing Shakespeare with Alan Moore.
> Obviously they can't *both* be Shakespeare.
Hey, maybe one of them can be Francis Bacon.
-Later, R.
--
-Later, R.
=====================================================================
"It smells like my GRAMPA!!"
-Milhous VanHouten
Ramhog
> You know, hon, you need a life.
Sure beats quoting an entire lengthy post just to get in one unnecessary
cheap shot, wouldn't you say, hon?
jayembee
[quoting me]
>> One could look at it that way, yes. My point, though, is that
>> it wouldn't have the power as a movie the way it has as a
>> comic. It would have to be changed to fit the medium in such
>> a way that it was no longer what it was.
> How do you figure? The only part that couldn't be translated
> directly to the screen is the kid reading the comic book.
That's the point! Moore had a reason for that set of allegorical
sequences in the book. If it's left out, then we're not getting
the work as Moore wrote it.
Besides, you've also forgotten about the text pieces at the end
of each issue, which also convey a lot of information that would
otherwise have to be shoehorned into expository dialogue.
Further, how would you duplicate the symmetry of the page and
panel layouts in "Fearful Symmetry" on film?
I think the point you're missing is that you seem to feel that
WATCHMEN is merely a sequence of events told in comic book form
that can be retold as is on film. I believe that WATCHMEN is
more than just the events that make up the story, and that "more"
part is what can't be captured on film.
It's like trying to write a novelization of CITIZEN KANE. How do
you duplicate in prose the reflection in the snowglobe as the
nurse enters Kane's room? How do you encapsulate the disintegration
of Kane's relationship with Emily over the course of a couple of
decades with the simplicity of the film's Breakfast Table Sequence?
Like KANE does for film, WATCHMEN tells its story with the tools
of its medium in a way that can't be duplicated in another.
--- jayembee (Jerry.B...@eds.com)
"Chemistry is easy. It's a lot like witchcraft, only less newt!"
niallmc
enough, and moore has a better grasp of character. Love them both,
though.
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
William Roberts
that got wayyy too much attention.
WR
*************************************************
* Comics Heart: Comics to half price *
* http://members.xoom.com/AsterdiS/main.html *
* Gigantic private collection for sale *
*************************************************
Rorschach
<sky...@shell1.tiac.net> wrote:
> Watchmen was voted one of the top stories of the century in Comic
> Book Buyers guide. Why? Why was it so good? What was the story
>about? I remebmer buyingthe series years ago but quickly lost interest
> after partially reqding the first story. Found it boring. Why did
> everyone else like it?
> thanks
> skyking
Ah, if only it would help. Some think that J.S. Bach is the greatest
composer ever. Others say no. It's just a matter of personal taste.
Some people think that comic books are all useless!
Personally, I agree that Watchmen is maybe the best thing that the
medium has ever produced. The Rorschach issue is my favorite.
(Surprise surprise) The depths of the characters and stories is
incredible. Of course, some of the credit has to go to the back-up
texts. So maybe that's cheating a little. Not really a comic book
without the pictures. But I don't care.
Eric