JacketFlap connects you to the work of more than 200,000 authors, illustrators, publishers and other creators of books for Children and Young Adults. The site is updated daily with information about every book, author, illustrator, and publisher in the children's / young adult book industry. Members include published authors and illustrators, librarians, agents, editors, publicists, booksellers, publishers and fans. Join now (it's free).
Login or Register for free to create your own customized page of blog posts from your favorite blogs. You can also add blogs by clicking the "Add to MyJacketFlap" links next to the blog name in each post.
Blog Posts by Tag
In the past 7 days
Blog Posts by Date
Click days in this calendar to see posts by day or month
Viewing: Blog Posts Tagged with: before watchmen, Most Recent at Top [Help]
Results 1 - 8 of 8
How to use this Page
You are viewing the most recent posts tagged with the words: before watchmen in the JacketFlap blog reader. What is a tag? Think of a tag as a keyword or category label. Tags can both help you find posts on JacketFlap.com as well as provide an easy way for you to "remember" and classify posts for later recall. Try adding a tag yourself by clicking "Add a tag" below a post's header. Scroll down through the list of Recent Posts in the left column and click on a post title that sounds interesting. You can view all posts from a specific blog by clicking the Blog name in the right column, or you can click a 'More Posts from this Blog' link in any individual post.
The comic book Watchmen, penned by Alan Moore and drawn by artist Dave Gibbons, is one of the most revered books in DC Comics’ nearly century-spanning catalogue. However, their treatment of the work’s creators has always been more than a little murky. Many people both within and outside the industry know that DC’s relationship with Moore […]
10 Comments on Dave Gibbons Was Not Consulted About the Watchmen’s Entrance Into the DC Universe, last added: 6/5/2016
I don’t think even Dave Gibbons, who generally seems to be pretty chill about Watchmen, would go along with this. That’s probably why they didn’t ask him. They didn’t think they’d get his blessing and didn’t care if he opposed it.
Dave Elliott said, on 6/2/2016 10:34:00 AM
I wonder if they’re going to actually use the Watchmen characters, perhaps instead using some of the storytelling motifs and using the Charlton characters they were based on….
*Note – I have only read Rebirth #1 at this stage so don’t beat me up because I haven’t read a DC comic in years. :-)
Oliver_C said, on 6/2/2016 11:21:00 AM
Either DC knew he’d say no, or they don’t care what he thinks. Says it all really.
All you fanboys happy about defending ‘Before Watchmen’ now, are you?
Sean Belt said, on 6/3/2016 11:02:00 AM
Since Dave Gibbons doesn’t own the Watchmen characters, There isn’t any necessity to ask his blessing or permission. It would have been a courtesy, but entertainment conglomerates are not usually big on courtesy. Does anyone seriously think that it would have stopped Geoff Johns and DC from going in this direction if they’d asked and Mr. Gibbons had told them it was a bad idea and nothing he could endorse? If it’s not something that readers can get behind, then those readers needn’t buy it. Those who don’t have a problem with it: enjoy what could turn out to be a pretty good story.
Solo500 said, on 6/3/2016 12:21:00 PM
Gibbons has style.
Skottie said, on 6/3/2016 6:31:00 PM
Not his characters. Who gives a flying fruck.
Allen Rubinstein said, on 6/5/2016 2:21:00 AM
I’m with Sean and Skottie. Who gives a shit about creators? We like comics. Comics are put out by corporate executives and lawyers who make contracts and sell merchandise. Writers and artists just think up ideas and write them down and draw them. Big deal! Comics readers are into contracts and legal ownership and plastic toys made in Indonesia. The creative people don’t matter!.
Kevin O. said, on 6/5/2016 7:34:00 AM
Does Dave Gibbons own the characters? If the answer is “no,” and they were products of “work for hire” and belong to DC, why would DC check with him first? Grow up.
Comics Relief: DC Cancels Bryan Hitch’s JUSTICE said, on 6/5/2016 7:56:00 AM
[…] Well, in an interview during MCM London Comic Con recently, several reporters asked Gibbons about the fact that Dr. Manhattan was going to be a part of the actual DC Universe, and an adversary at that. He then told the reporters “no comment,” and when a follow-up question asked if DC had even sent him an email about using Dr. Manhattan, he replied, “No, they didn’t.” Time to make some calls, DC. You already have one Watchmen co-creator hating on you…you don’t want two. [Comics Beat] […]
Allen Rubinstein said, on 6/5/2016 3:29:00 PM
Kevin, I agree completely! The legacy of a literary classic shouldn’t be decided by the people who made it! It should be decided by the people who took over the jobs of other people who came out ahead in a legal negotiation twenty-five years ago! That’s why we’re all still reading the J.B. Lippincott Company’s To Kill a Mockingbird and Random House’s Ulysses. It’s why J.K. Rowling has never been consulted in the use and exploitation of that Harry Potter bloke! The business of comics is exactly the way it should be!
A while ago, a few very select comics press outlets were invited to the NY and Burbank offices of DC Comics to look at the pages of the BEFORE WATCHMEN prequels. Of course, only the tip top of the comics media were allowed in: MTV Geek, IGN, CBR, , Comicvine, and Mancave for 670 The Score Chicago Sports Radio.
We call shenanigans! Anyway, caveats were entered, impressions gleaned. Writers were not allowed to actually discuss plot points but rather give overall thoughts and gestaltic reactions.
Valerie Gallaher writes for MTV re the Comedian:
There was quite a lot of that issue to peruse — and while I cannot discuss the exact subject matter surrounding the story, I can assure you that it will probably be quite the controversy. If “Comedian” keeps going down the narrative road I think it will travel, I suspect we will all have a lot to talk about regarding it in the months ahead.
Joey Esposito at IGN, notes that there is lots of continuity:
Rest assured, the Before Watchmen books that are particular standouts – my favorites were the aforementioned Minutemen, Comedian, and Ozymandias – find a new approach to these characters that fits firmly in Watchmen continuity without stepping on the toes of events we’ve previously witnessed or read about. You’ll find yourself surprised by the plots of some of these books, and even giddy at the well-placed easter eggs for things that have a payoff in the original classic.
Mancave’s Alex Zalben on Rorschach:
WHY YOU WANT IT: If you like to feel dirty, you will love this book. Artist Lee Bermejo is an insanely good visual storyteller – the script was separate in this book, and we understood everything that was going on. The opening page is Rorschach’s mask depicted in the clouds over New York City, and it only gets better from there. Plus, if there’s one character we want more from in Watchmen, it’s Rorschach. Poor guy needs a little love.
DC as a corporation has been bashed for doing the project, the creators have been bashed for participating in the project…I’m waiting for the internet and some comics blogs to start bashing anyone who A) Actually buys the comics and B) Doesn’t hate them.
Snikt Snakt said, on 5/18/2012 10:10:00 AM
They should put a cover blurb on the Comedian’s book, “Now with LESS rape!!!”
KET said, on 5/18/2012 10:13:00 AM
Guess they should add another Before Watchman reporter-type character named The Tool.
pulphope said, on 5/18/2012 10:45:00 AM
I don’t understand the Before Watchmen/Spain Rodriguez connection….is there one? I’ve seen the series and artist mentioned a number of times now. I know a certain other comics reporter has been making the comparison/contrast and I appreciate the spirit of that, but is there a connection outside of that?
Mikael said, on 5/18/2012 11:02:00 AM
They are just trying to show how clever they are.
jonboy said, on 5/18/2012 11:11:00 AM
1. Why should they invite people from comics sites? They’re trying to reach people that don’t already know about it. People that read comics sites are already comics fans and already know about it.
2. Why should they invite people from comics sites that have already and unequivocally stated how much they are against the project? For example, someone from the Beat. As it is, you have an extremely negative viewpoint and article WITHOUT getting the preview.
But hell, you have to admit, all this Before Watchmen vitriol has gotten this site more page views than any article talking about how cool some indy book that no one has ever heard of and no one will buy is.
The Beat said, on 5/18/2012 11:17:00 AM
Jonboy: 1. Actually that is so not true, as I know from some projects I have worked on in the past.
2. I definitely don’t expect to get a BW exclusive cover. And that’s fine. I’d get a ton more traffic if all I posted was movie news, superhero news and hot girls. I post what interests me and it interests an audience large enough to support the site. I’m happy with that equation.
Scratchie said, on 5/18/2012 11:26:00 AM
>These characters are dangerous. These
>characters know exactly what they’re doing.
Barf.
Ken Raining said, on 5/18/2012 11:46:00 AM
@ Jonboy: the PTB at DC are aware enough to know that they’ve got a vocal minority of fans that are outraged by these books, so reaching out to some of the big sites among the fan community makes sense. If they can get some of those sites to support them, it might help quiet some of the complainers.
And, of course, there’s always the possibility that these characters asked for them, since they know exactly what they’re doing. Rorschach: “I always wanted to meet Jonah Weiland”.
Forgot to say earlier that I really do love the idea of Dan Didio, world’s biggest optimist.
David M said, on 5/18/2012 1:34:00 PM
I find it strange that people are implying that Valerie (D’Orazio) Gallaher would be in the tank for Dan Didio. I’ve been reading her for years, and her take has never been anything more positive than that he eats fried babies for breakfast, hates women, and is determined to replace all the fun in comics with rape, violence, and sexism in every panel of every issue.
Also, the notion that Time Warner and Viacom are going to share some conspiratorial corporate synergy also strikes me as unlikely. Are the Before Watchmen reality show, McDonald’s Happy Meal, MMORPG, and juice-box tie-in going to be joint ventures between Time Warner and Paramount? If not, then Viacom probably hopes Before Watchmen will be a big disaster.
The Beat said, on 5/18/2012 2:20:00 PM
If you’ve really followed Valerie’s writings, she is a big believer in archetypes and the subjective unconscious. (Hope I’m not misinterpreting her.) From that standpoint, her comments make sense.
I think it’s a very different view of the project….one that hasn’t been considered before. And sure provacative. But Alan Moore has also explored similar themes in PROMETHEA to name one work.
Anyway remember no hating! Only commentary!
Oh and Paul, Tom Spurgeons’s whole Spain Rodriguez thing is, as I see it, a way to distinguish between corporate owned comics franchises and the work of the honest craftsman cartoonists over a 40 year period with only a hazy idea of how it will pay off.
Nate A. said, on 5/18/2012 3:52:00 PM
I’m assuming the “no hating” was directed at my post and others directed at D’Orazio, but her belief in the collective unconscious is aligning awfully well with the corporate line.
I agree that it’s provocative, and that you can make a connection to Moore’s musings on the same. But if you take it to its logical extreme, nobody really owns a character, and no damage can be done to a character by a creator. This is an idea I don’t think would go over easy with most of fandom, and it raises the question of why we should care about who’s writing/drawing these things in the first place.
Richard Caldwell said, on 5/18/2012 3:55:00 PM
Val’s statements are refreshing and more than likely on the nose. They are archetypical, and that’s something Moore and his ideaspace may even buy into, in time.
I won’t read the books though. Even archetypes can still be molested. While I agree with Val, I also see that this entire series is nothing but a play for $$$. So in that regard it’s not a matter of who’s watching (or reading) the Watchmen, it’s more like who’s using who- the Watchmen or DC. In the long term, those characters will be around longer than the carers of many of DC’s executives. In the short term, they are the ones bent over a table.
Ken Raining said, on 5/18/2012 5:34:00 PM
I have to admit, I had no idea that Valerie Gallaher is Valerie D’Orazio (haven’t followed her work for awhile, I guess). Yes, she certainly deserves the benefit of the doubt. I still think her comments as quoted here are fairly preposterous.
Alex Zalben has a fine write up on MoCCA’s ‘To Run A Comic Shop’ Panel , which included Tucker Stone of Bergen Street Comics, Gabe Fowler of Desert Island,Robert Conte of Manhattan Comics and Brooklyn Comics, Thor Parker of Midtown Comics and moderator (and former retaielrs) Alex Cox, currently of the CBLDF. As usual that’s a very smart, modern line-up of merchants, and sure enough there was some inetresting talk. For instance, some stores actually frown on cel phones when they are used to order comics online—using the brick and mortar store as a showroom of sorts:
Cox then started a discussion about how things have changed in retail over the years. “Stores, in a way, have become showrooms,” said Conti, talking about how customers will check prices on their phones before buying. “The customer has become my biggest competitor because of smartphones.” Fowler agreed with this point, asking that he politely asks people not to use the phones in their store. On the other hand, Stone said that, “Any customer who is going to come into our store to buy things purely on a price level is only going to be satisfied by the Internet.”
And then there’s….Before Watchmen.
Stone chimed in that Bergen won’t be buying Before Watchmen, except for customers who pulled it now. “We won’t have it on the wall,” said Stone. “It’s not useful for graphic novels, it’s not useful for small press… It’s only useful for the weekly stuff.”
ComiXology’s David Steinberger then asked Stone from the audience to clarify why Bergen isn’t selling Before Watchmen, to which Stone said, “We’re gonna lose money, we’ll probably lose customers… It was a decision that was made. When I heard that decision, I said that’s a bad idea… That’s an explanation that I’ll have to give over and over again. As time has gone on, as I’ve seen online response to that project… This is just gross, and we don’t want to be part of this one. We’ll participate with the grossness they did to Kirby on the Avengers books, but this one…”
That’sa pretty gutsy move by Bergen Street. We had tweeted this during the panel and got a vociferous response from pros and retaielr salike who felt that Bergen Street was being irresponsible and leaving money on the table.
To be continued, naturally.
15 Comments on Retailers differ on banning cell phones and Before Watchmen, last added: 4/30/2012
BIG BIG ups to Dustin for making a solid, reasonable summary of the argument against the project.
Again, the quality of the books themselves is not the point people are making. The quality of the books doesn’t matter if you feel DC has screwed the original creator of the concept.
BlackcatGreg said, on 4/30/2012 4:20:00 PM
@citizencliff Yes! Thank you! He was offered a bad deal, but thanks for realizing that he, indeed, signed that deal. No excuse to complain now.
Of course DC and Marvel have screwed a lot of creators. That’s what happens when you deal with large corporations. If you don’t know that, maybe you shouldn’t be dealing with large corporations.
That’s why companies like Image, Dark Horse, Top Shelf, etc. exist. To help sustain creator owned books.
If you want to own your own characters, it’s probably a pretty bad idea to create them for a huge conglomerate.
Will Naslund said, on 4/30/2012 4:32:00 PM
“This constant Charlton comparison is saying it’s raw material and not the chef that we should take into account.”
On the other hand, *this* argument that ONLY the contributions and wishes of the putative ‘chef’ (Moore) should be taken into account — and what the ’sous chef’ (Gibbons) and the folks who provided the ‘ingredients’ (Charlton, though Moore did tweak the ‘recipe’ a bit) and the ‘kitchen’ (DC) contributed is without value or merit — seems equally ill-conceived and cynical in its own way to me.
Mikael said, on 4/30/2012 4:41:00 PM
How quickly things start to look like Newsarama around here. And this place is supposed to be above the “fanboyish” dialogue. Ha.
Dustin Harbin said, on 4/30/2012 4:42:00 PM
@Blackcatgreg: “Of course DC and Marvel have screwed a lot of creators. That’s what happens when you deal with large corporations.”
It’s obvious that we’re on two different sides of the river here. On the other hand, it’s clear that there’s a bright future for you in DC’s marketing division.
Will Naslund said, on 4/30/2012 4:47:00 PM
“3) the event itself as emblem of DC and Marvel’s extraordinarily short-sighted thinking in this age of event comics. Why detail some of your most high profile, respected creators, and J. Michael Straczynski, to make new stories that weren’t necessary, that predate a comic that hasn’t been timely in 20 years? Why not make NEW CHARACTERS, NEW STORIES, NEW ADVENTURES, instead of exhuming the same old corpses and fondling their over-handled remains again and again?”
Respectfully, this is a rather silly argument. New Characters/Adventures vs. Old Characters/Adventures is a false choice. I like a great deal of the new creator-owned work being done today (Chew, Fatale, Bendis’ Scarlet, etc.), but I also like reading a good Batman yarn now and then — and I suspect most comic readers are like me in that regard.
Shared-world universe stories (with superheroes) are a unique artform unto themselves, and as such have a certain unique appeal. That really shouldn’t be that hard a concept to grasp.
As for ‘necessary’ — who and/or what criteria should determine whether a story was necessary? Was Batman: LOTDK ‘necessary’? Was Daredevil: Born Again? Or about Darwyn Cooke’s New Frontier (or his Parker adpatations, for that matter)? How about Moore’s own ‘Whatever Happened to The Man of Tomorrow’?'Necessary’ or not, I’m glad those creators used those ‘old’ characters to make some great comics.
There’s a lot of great creator-owned work out there, and I’m happy to extol its virtues — but I’m equally happy to roll my eyes at those who think they have to trash classic characters and/or the practice of WFH in order to do so.
Syd said, on 4/30/2012 4:50:00 PM
This is great news. I have a lot of respect for these people. It’s never okay to screw the creator. Glad people are starting to finally take a stand against it.
jacob goddard said, on 4/30/2012 4:51:00 PM
Yes yes yes, its a complex and nuanced issue, but my first gut reaction “i’d be more likely to go to a store because they didn’t stock Before Watchmen”.
The Wednesday crowd are unlikely to abandon their loyal lcs because they don’t have any copies of a specific issue. Probably happens all the time with the surprise hits.
But for people like me?
They just became a destination shop.
Dustin Harbin said, on 4/30/2012 5:13:00 PM
Will, I’m not saying no one should make comics with existing characters, but Watchmen? It’s like doing “The Early Adventures Of Jay Gatsby”–it’s not necessary because Watchmen is a closed circuit, a finite, wholly contained story. Batman and Superman and Spider-Man are existing characters whose stories have always been episodic genre tales, often retreading the same old ground because biff-bam-pow, comics are usually for kids. But Watchmen is for adults.
Another way to come at it–Watchmen was a piece of art, whether or not you like the art, or whatever its flaws might have been. It grappled with issues both in and out of its pages, both contextual and subtextual. Before Watchmen is just money–it’s just a book of coupons. There’s no reason for it to be there, except for fan service and DC’s bottom line.
I’d argue DC could expend the same amount of energy, marketing, fake viral “buzz”, etc., and create new characters, new IP’s, new directions that over time would make MORE money for the company, in whatever markets or media or venues. If DC wants to be purely about their bottom line, I think that’s perfectly fine. But doing it this way, in such an unnecessarily exploitative way, engendering so much ill will toward the company and by extension the creators who work for that company– it’s stupid. It’s bad business. It’s smoke and mirrors, and behind the smoke and mirrors are just more smoke, more mirrors, and nothing of real value or import.
I don’t blame anyone who’s excited about Before Watchmen. I don’t think it’s bad at all to want to read it or buy it or whatever. I do find the whole project reprehensible, cloddish, and backwards, but there are a lot of comics I don’t like. That’s just my opinion, for what that’s worth. But I think when people like Chris Roberson and shops like Bergen Street make a stand on issues they find unbearably problematic, I think it’s worth something.
We tend to view these issues as if we all had law degrees– “now now, hold on, we all know he signed that contract, too bad dumdum”, but that’s frankly gross reasoning. If you think that comics are art, then it follows that comics are artists. And if you value people making art, don’t act like bad contracts are zingers that big bad corporations should be expected to throw at artists! Don’t act like Siegel and Shuster had law degrees and were savvy businessmen. Don’t pretend that Jack Kirby didn’t build virtually the entire Marvel Universe in just a few years, only to later have most of his originals stolen while under Marvel’s care, and have to renounce all rights in order to get the few remaining pieces back. Jack Kirby was a soldier and an artist and a visionary. Alan Moore revolutionized “literate” comics a dozen times in the 80’s and 90’s. We should treat these artists with the respect their creations and their sweat have earned, not line up to come up with clever reasons why they deserved what they got.
Michael M said, on 4/30/2012 5:18:00 PM
I agree with Citizen Cliff’s point. Stores are in the business of selling, not censoring. If I hear of a favorite writer or artist putting out a book called Hitler and the gay bashers rape some babies, with the proceeds going to the KKK, I really don’t care. I want to read that book. I like comic shops that sell EVERYTHING. If a shop doesnt’ want to be obvious about promoting BW, then that’s awesome. If a comic shop only want’s to promote Indies, then that’s awesome too. But carry everything or chances are I won’t be buying stuff at your shop because I don’t care at all about your personal morals or lack of them.
Regarding the tangent about Charlton and Chefs and Songs and what not, I’ll just say that this comment by Will Naslund says it all:
“On the other hand, *this* argument that ONLY the contributions and wishes of the putative ‘chef’ (Moore) should be taken into account — and what the ’sous chef’ (Gibbons) and the folks who provided the ‘ingredients’ (Charlton, though Moore did tweak the ‘recipe’ a bit) and the ‘kitchen’ (DC) contributed is without value or merit — seems equally ill-conceived and cynical in its own way to me.”
This. Period. It takes a village. You hippy creators lining up for Kickstarter funds should know that.
Kurt Busiek said, on 4/30/2012 5:22:00 PM
Dean
>> Sure, I figure most [if not all] merchants curate what they sell but I used to “believe” I had the latitude to browse and “shop” for anything that was published any given week, as long as I was diligent and arrived the day it was officially released [when I dare skip the weekly release day, I check online to see what came out and contact my LCS and ask 'em to kindly pull and hold my desired choices]. >>
The number of comics stores that carry everything that’s published any given week is probably zero. If you believed that you were seeing it all by shopping early, you were probably missing out on a lot of stuff that never made the shelves at all.
Cliff:
>> I don’t believe it’s the place of the shops or online stores to boycott or sensor which books are available to the customers.>>
Every store limits what books are available to its customers. Heck, even grocery stores limit what groceries are available to their customers.
>> Alan didn’t pass on being brought on to write Swamp Thing, a seminal comics character created by Len Wein, and he did a terrific job. He didn’t say ‘No, no, I can’t, that’s Len’s character.’>>
Considering Len was the one offering him the job, it would have been a very odd response.
Secrets behind the comics revealed: When I was trying to sell stuff to DC, Len invited me to come up with SWAMP THING and JLA fill-in ideas, because he’d offered Alan whichever of the two books he wanted. Whichever one Alan didn’t take, he’d need a fill-in for. So Alan took SWAMP THING and I got to write JLA #224. [My Swamp Thing fill-in ideas made it into other works, none of them involving Swamp Thing.]
kdb
Rich said, on 4/30/2012 5:26:00 PM
I’ve been informed that my local shop won’t be carrying ‘Before Watchmen’ either except for subscribers. They actually went so far as to remove the cover of this month’s Previews catalog (featuring a Jae Lee drawing of Ozymandias) from the store copy. Strikes me as leaving money on the table, but I understand the decision.
Then again, I wasn’t going to buy them anyway.
Matthew Southworth said, on 4/30/2012 5:26:00 PM
@Dustin Harbin–re: “if you think of comics as art, you must then agree that comics creators are artists”, I agree with that.
But it raises an interesting distinction–can a corporation make art? Can it hire craftsmen–and subvert their artistic identities to its own commercial whims–and still make art? I don’t want to say it can, but I sort of think it can.
It further raises the question of whether something conceived out of non-artistic motives can become art, which again, I think it can.
Maybe in the long run we should consider there to be two creators of a given mainstream comic–the “artist” and the “corporation” (however many people there are on the artist side and however many people on the corporate side). Certainly I’d say that’s the case with Before Watchmen, and I’d argue it’s also true of virtually any superhero comic from Marvel and DC.
(hope it comes through that I’m not trying to refute anything you’re saying; I agree with EVERYThing you’re saying, and it leads me to this next stage of questioning)
Rich said, on 4/30/2012 5:40:00 PM
Alan didn’t pass on being brought on to write Swamp Thing, a seminal comics character created by Len Wein, and he did a terrific job.
These arguments about Alan Moore and Swamp Thing never make sense to me. Moore was at least the fifth writer to use the character in an extended run (including throughout the end of the Challengers of the Unknown series before Martin Pasko’s run). Swampy was clearly meant to have ongoing serial adventures like the other umpteen dozen DC heroes.
Kurt Busiek said, on 4/30/2012 5:45:00 PM
Matt:
>> Maybe in the long run we should consider there to be two creators of a given mainstream comic–the “artist” and the “corporation” (however many people there are on the artist side and however many people on the corporate side).>>
If you do that, it naturally extends to considering Maxwell Perkins the co-author of all the books he edited, by promoting anyone who has input into a project to the level of co-author. The work-for-hire deals already make the corporation the legal author of the work; I think that’s more than enough.
Side example: I once, at Norman Mailer’s request,* wrote a long letter advising him on how to finish HARLOT’S GHOST. Does that make me a co-author?
[*not a direct request - Mailer asked his agent for advice, his agent farmed the job out to one of the VPs, and the VPs dropped 750 pages of manuscript on my desk and told me to get going.]
Or, on the Charlton’s rights side of the equation: Lawrence Block once wrote a novel about a private eye named Markham, a licensed tie-in to a TV show. When he was done, his agent and editor thought the novel was good enough to stand on its own, so Block reworked the manuscript so it was about a PI of his own invention, and sold the book as an original. [He also wrote another Markham novel, to fulfill that contract.] Does that mean the TV company that made the Markham series has some sort of right to Block’s new PI character? He didn’t change the characters at the proposal stage, after all. He wrote the whole book, finished it, then rewrote it to be a new character.
I think various people inspire, advise and suggest, but that doesn’t make them co-authors. Ditko owns Mr. A, DC owns the Question, and Rorschach is tied up in whatever the Watchmen rights are. But even though they’re creatively related, they’re different characters, as are TV’s Markham and Block’s “Ed London,” who took his place in Block’s manuscript.
I wanted to finish up a few things on Before Watchmen and then, hopefully I’ll wrap this up. I finished Monday’s post while I was hopped up on Benadryl and that is not something I recommend for anyone. I was not able to articulate my name the main reason why Before Watchmen (BeWa) can be viewed as a depressing reality for the comics industry.
I’ll start with reprinting one of my comments on the previous thread:
The contract that Moore and Gibbons signed is actually pretty standard in publishing — the rights revert when it goes out of print. Pretty common.
Where it differs is in this: In the book publishing world, in general, when an author such as Alan Moore writes a worldwide smash that is quickly enshrined as a future classic….you try to keep that person working for you so you can make even more money off their future works.
DC, for reasons probably buried in their DNA from Jack Liebowitz, proceeded to alienate Moore by chintzing him on merchandise monies, and then subsequently alienating him by making him change The Cobweb stories and trashing an entire print run of LoeG.
Is Moore a high maintenance creator? Absolutely.
But you’ll note that the main reason Diane Nelson, DC’s current president, was given reign over the company is because she was so good at handling another very high maintenance creator, J.K. Rowling.
1. Alan Moore and Dave Gibbons’s Watchmen is an enormously successful comic book, on creative, critical, and commercial levels
2. Moore and Gibbons both signed a contract that gave DC the rights to Watchmen until the book went out of print for a year (I believe), at which point they’d receive the rights back
3. Watchmen was an unheralded success, and the book has yet to go out of print. As a result, Moore and Gibbons never got their rights back.
4. DC promised to share revenue from Watchmen-related merchandise, and then went ahead and produced merchandise and classified it as promotional and didn’t give M&G anything
5. These shenanigans, along with a coming ratings system that Moore disagreed with, led Moore to cut ties with DC entirely
6. DC brought Wildstorm, which came along with America’s Best Comics. Moore felt that leaving DC again would screw his artists over, so he stuck around
7. DC continued screwing with Moore over the years, from pulping his comics to either sabotaging (or botching to such an extent that it might as well be sabotage) the release of League of Extraordinary Gentlemen: Black Dossier
8. Moore cut ties again, and has consistently refused DC’s money, overtures, and renegotiations.
9. Before Watchmen is a series of prequels to Watchmen, some thirty-five issues that will shed light on characters from
15 Comments on The creator’s position viewed through the lens of Alan Moore, last added: 4/25/2012
Did any site other than IO9 make a request to DC for a Spaceman preview?
mark mazz said, on 4/25/2012 7:58:00 AM
This article encompasses so many of my feelings and conflicted views of today. Thank you for writing it for the world to read.
I had been working at DC when they bought WildStorm, and the Alan Moore conflict of interests didn’t even occur to me until someone pointed it out later in the day. Then came the plane trip to England by Jim Lee to discuss and reassure Alan. I do think that senior management understood the VALUE of WildStorm as a separate studio operating in different offices. It’s my belief that part of the reason that WildStorm wasn’t folded up sooner was the understanding that Alan would do business with them, but not DC central.
I’m totally on board with not hating the creators behind BeWa, but I simply won’t look at it. I’d rather read a new crop of IMAGE books with that money. There are so many great ones that just started…
Saga
Thief of Thieves
Fatale
older ones like…
TURF
WALKING DEAD
SHARKMAN
INVINCIBLE
the new MillarWorld books like…
Secret Service
Supercrooks
Superior
Believe me, there’s GREAT comics out there…and I’ll just pass on the BeWa product. It’s not for me. I’d rather read old issues of Alan’s SUPREME, or 1964!
Michael Hoskin said, on 4/25/2012 8:02:00 AM
Kevin,
>I’m not sure I can think of any backlist titles as successful as WATCHMEN where the publisher and the writer were no longer working together, but there might well be some.
Usagi Yojimbo is not of the same stature as Watchmen, but volumes 1-7 are still being printed by Sakai’s first publisher, Fantagraphics, while the rest of the library is printed at Dark Horse. It’s a little similar to your Gor example.
Bill Kartalopoulos said, on 4/25/2012 8:04:00 AM
Heidi,
Thanks for adding your own historical perspective here. I was thinking the other day how sad it is that fan culture, whatever its pros and cons, has gone from celebrating creators to regurgitating corporate values. Arguably, the major achievement of early fan culture was celebrating artists and writers who had often labored in obscurity for low wages and no long term prospects. Fan culture made Jack Kirby feel like the valuable artist he was after a career’s worth of contentious relationships with publishers. Fan culture brought Carl Barks and John Stanley out of obscurity, remedied the neglect of their publishers, and gave Barks a more or less happy ending to his career. Fan culture made people like Harvey Kurtzman, Wally Wood, and Bill Everett — who all led difficult professional and personal lives — feel appreciated for their cultural contributions. Fan culture couldn’t fix these people’s lives or give them everything they deserved, but to the best of its ability fan culture recognized and celebrated the achievements of creative individuals who didn’t receive similar recognition or commensurate compensation from the industry they worked for. Clearly, something has changed, and I’m sure there must be many reasons. I think the shift must be strongly tied to the evolution of something like the San Diego Comic-Con from a gathering of people with shared enthusiasms to a media event that markets marketing as entertainment. It’s too bad.
Bill Kartalopoulos
jaroslav hasek said, on 4/25/2012 8:05:00 AM
so i take it we’re still waiting on word about Watchbabies in V for Vacation?
anyone else fine with what DC AND Alan Moore’s position here? worst case is the BeWa books suck, the market ignores them but the creators still get paid and DC loses some money. and probably retailers, which would be the worst of it. best case is they’re alright to great, some non regular comic buyers spend some dough that would otherwise not be circulating through the industry and everyone gets paid. the legacy of the original series should be fine. didn’t they release a ton of substandard Lord of the Rings material after Tolkien died? i dont think that diluted the stories any.
a potential positive corollary to all this is altho BeWa may not be comicdom’s finest hour, it may draw attention (though great articles like this one) and shine more light on comics history and get people to pay more attention to the mountain of awesome original material being produced in the comics medium every week.
also alan moore can say whatever he wants. whats the point of getting mad at him for voicing his opinion? hes not actually stopping DC (or Marvel) from publishing anything. its ok if he has different opinions or thinks differently than you or I, thats why hes able to write such mind blowing radness.
also when are we going to see Sir William Gull actions figures?
Marc-Oliver Frisch said, on 4/25/2012 8:08:00 AM
One thing to keep in mind is that all of this is down to decisions made by people. It’s not “DC” and “Marvel” who make most of these decisions, but responsible executives and editors and creators working at and with these companies. As long as these individuals don’t change their behavior, the rules in the industry won’t change.
As long as those responsible soothe each other with the notion that “this is the way things are,” nothing’s going to change for the better. It’s a bullshit excuse. Everybody’s responsible for their own actions, no matter the circumstances.
One thing I’d like to hear from Jim Lee, for instance, is why exactly he thinks the position he’s taking is ethically justified. Surely, as one of the founders of Image Comics, he must have an opinion on that.
Ryan Higgins said, on 4/25/2012 8:18:00 AM
Great article, Heidi, and I’m not going to disagree with most of what you said.
What I do want to say, though, it that every situation is unique. In the case of Watchmen, it was a genre-defining book, but no one could have known that when the signed the contracts. DC is owed much for the success of Watchmen, just as the publishers for JK Rowling is owed much for the success for Harry Potter, because the company allows the creator to reach a level of popularity that would be difficult to reach on ones own.
What’s funny is most of the destruction of Alan Moore’s relationship with DC was at hands of Paul Levitz, not the current administration. From what I remember, and please correct me if I’m remembering this wrong, it came out Moore was approached by DiDio to write more Watchmen, which they’d then sign the rights to the characters back over to Moore. He refused, so DC continued on without him.
Funny about Neil Gaiman and Sandman. I love Sandman. I love Neil Gaiman. Gun to my head, it’s my favorite comic of all time, and Gaiman is my favorite creator of all time. But at the end of the day, Sandman is a DC character, owned by DC Comics. They could do whatever they wanted with the character. Is it right? Would it be good? Who knows, but it would be DC’s right to do whatever they wanted with it. I’d argue that it’s impossible to know what the “best” version of a character is, because no one knows what the future will hold. Do you get mad at Geoff Johns for “ruining” Martin Nodell’s original creation? Maybe Gaiman ruined Kirby’s Sandman for someone.
Is it morally right for DC to publish Before Watchmen? That’s debatable, as we’ve seen. Is it legally right for DC to publish Before Watchmen? Yep. Last I checked, DC is a for-profit company, and at the end of the day, they’ll do what makes them money. Some people will boycott and refuse to even look at them, some people will think they’re the best comics that have ever been published. Time will tell if this was a good move or not, we’re too in the thick of it to see.
Eric Orchard said, on 4/25/2012 8:21:00 AM
Fantastic piece Heidi. We need to find the audience for original comics and make it grow. This constant retreading of stories in comics, film etc. is appalling. I guess it’s the same short sighted business approach behind the great recession, a frantic grab for short term profits at the expense of industry health.
david brothers said, on 4/25/2012 8:32:00 AM
I’m sure I’ll have more to say later, but I really enjoyed reading this, Heidi. Thanks for writing it.
I didn’t expect it at all, but your Spaceman example is crucial. I took a look around. CBR posts every preview that DC puts out, and the most I found was the preview for Strange Adventures #1 back in MAY as far as Spaceman material. io9’s preview was for issue 2. If you’re curious about Spaceman, good luck, sucker, because you’ll have to seek out an entirely different comic to find out what it looks like. There was a USA Today feature with no interior art, too.
This seems like such a failure of imagination. You have a bankable series by proven creators who are HOT off the back of a well-received crossover book (which got nommed for an Eisner the other week) and you don’t even show the insides of the comic like you do EVERY other comic? Pathetic.
Michael Netzer said, on 4/25/2012 8:32:00 AM
Because primary industry outlets are dominated by two companies that are pummeling the creator/publisher synergy into ethical oppression, then the only recourse for the humanely perceptive among fandom, creators and the comics press, in order to influence towards improvement, is to raise a strong public voice for fairness that will reverberate through the entertainment media and hope to discourage the destructive trends. Hats off to this inspiring and beautifully articulated commentary, Heidi.
Justin H. said, on 4/25/2012 8:34:00 AM
Thank you, Heidi. Excellent article.
Phil Hester said, on 4/25/2012 8:37:00 AM
Goal!
Ryan Higgins said, on 4/25/2012 8:39:00 AM
It’s interesting you bring up Spaceman, because I ordered a good amount of the #1 issue to give away to customers and fans of 100 Bullets. Almost universal disinterest for the series, no one liked it. I sell a handful of copies, and most people that are getting it get it because it’s Azz. A few have told me they don’t even like it, they just want to support the creators. Maybe DC knew it was gonna bomb and decided to wash their hands of it and not bother promoting it?
Jim said, on 4/25/2012 8:40:00 AM
I am glad to see reasoned discussion about this issue, and not just hype over the project. Props to Brothers for helping to raise awareness of the issue, and props to Heidi for bring more “mainstream” attention to it.
I guess I echo what many have said before, I respect and enjoy the work of many of the creators involved in BWM. I don’t respect some creators attacks against Moore. I personally won’t be buying any BWM material for moral reasons, and in some cases I will be avoiding the work of some of the creators that have unleashed more of the vicious attacks against Moore, as that was uncalled for.
If my neighbors house is robbed, thats no excuse to rob mine. And if my house does get robbed, I really hope people won’t insult me for complaining about it regardless of where I live and how often my neighbors get robbed. Wrong is still wrong no matter how often it happens.
I wish I knew what was in Lee’s head on this to be honest. To date, all he has really done is spout the company line, and I guess I expected better of him then that. I can understand why the company is going down this road, but I guess I expected more out of some of the people involved, and I am really disappointed in the whole mess, and in a number of the people on a personal level.
On the flip side, there are a number of projects that are out at Image that I plan on supporting. And I am excited about some of the new stuff Dark Horse is doing too. Hopefully some of this annoyance with the larger corporate publishers will drive interest into some of these well deserving books coming out.
Dave Elliott said, on 4/25/2012 8:43:00 AM
Great well thought out piece Heidi.
For better or worse we are not in the same place we were 25 years ago. Corporations have gobbled up the world’s resources and the age of innocence has long passed us by.
In this industry more than any other I can think of we hold fast to two diametrically opposed points of views;
1/ The Creator as God. We love you! Love all your work!! Now do more Batman/Spider-Man.
2/ Creator as the Devil. How dare you deny us your creations! Love for the creator to get credit and money just as long as it doesn’t effect my reading habits.
Now these points of view are just threads on message boards. No one outside our community cares. Little Johnny wants a Spider-Man costume to wear at Halloween and his birthday party. Who cares whether Steve Ditko or Jack Kirby designed it? Who cares that Marvel editors made more money selling Jack’s artwork than he did?
Just bring on Avengers 2!! Maybe it will include Marvelman on the team…
Last week Buzzfeed, the hugely popular “viral” media site, went on a photo tour of DC’s offices, including a slideshow that we now can’t find that included shots of publicity VP David Hyde’s office. EDIT: It was on CNET, that’s why. Which was ironic, since early last week it was announced Hyde was leaving DC.
Well apparently, while on that tour someone held open the ultra-secret notebook of Watchmen art, which was handcuffed to Bob Wayne’s wrist at the retailer summit week before last. Here’s a bunch of concept art and stuff but not the “Rorschach’s face in the clouds” page other alluded to.
We’re not going to spotlight all the art except Amanda Conner and Lee Bermejo, Conner because she’s the one who’s sticking closest to the original, and Bermejo because he’s quietly become one of the best mainstream artists working in the last few years with his Joker and Batman: Noel graphic novels.
Our opinion: this all looks like nice stuff. Very nice. Nice enough to sell your soul?
How exactly are these “leaked” when someone stood there with the notebooks open? Is it like the moment in the adoption agency when the nice lady tells you she can’t legally tell you who your birth parents are and then leaves the room with the file open on her desk? Did Buzzfeed use their secret spy glasses to take the pictures? Did David Hyde hold the book open before packing up his things?
15 Comments on Before Watchmen and New 52 Wave Two art revealed: is it really a leak when someone holds the notebook open?, last added: 4/23/2012
Handcuffed was a metaphor. He did have a death grip on it, however.
scott said, on 4/23/2012 11:06:00 AM
Fuck this shit.
john layman said, on 4/23/2012 11:13:00 AM
I want Bob Wayne in handcuffs for my sex dungeon.
horatio weisfeld said, on 4/23/2012 11:16:00 AM
I suppose it might not be worse than The Two Jakes.
Shags said, on 4/23/2012 11:47:00 AM
“Bob Wayne” and “sex dungeon” used in the same sentence? I’m done with the internets today.
RegularSyzedMike said, on 4/23/2012 12:03:00 PM
Remember the prequel they did for The Two Jakes? They called it “One Jake”.
Nate said, on 4/23/2012 12:14:00 PM
No, it was just called “Jake.”
The sequel to “The Two Jakes” is called “Two Jakes and a Jill.”
Christian said, on 4/23/2012 12:50:00 PM
I got here after my usual Googling of “Bob Wayne sex dungeon” and… what is this about?
toby cypress said, on 4/23/2012 1:37:00 PM
A snow globe homage to the Watchmen button? Really?
Mike Mitchell Online said, on 4/23/2012 3:15:00 PM
The Rorschach page actually looked pretty cool.
b.t.t.c. said, on 4/23/2012 4:34:00 PM
The more I see of Before Watchmen, the less I think of the creators involved.
Just looking at that Silk Spectre page makes me feel queasy. It just looks WRONG for that to exist.
And I’m not even a huge fan of Watchmen. I wasn’t all that outraged when the Before Watchmen project was announced. I wasn’t going to buy it, but it’s not like it made me angry or anything.
I’m still not angry, but the more I see of it the more disgusting the whole project seems to me. Totally unnecessary. Total sellout crap. I mean, if you’re going to put out THIS, what WOULDN’T you put out?
Christian said, on 4/23/2012 5:22:00 PM
This will be the most successful FanFic ever produced.
Al™ said, on 4/23/2012 5:52:00 PM
The ‘accidental’ teasers are interesting. I will have a look at the finished product in the comic store, and decide then if I want to buy any of these PreWatchmen comics.
I love how this stuff is annoying the crybabies. Don’t worry we know you would not buy DC anyway, my co-horts and i will buy multiples to spread the word, it is going to be a fun convention season with so much great DC product to sell!!
In a medium where no character ever truly dies, and where even the grandest continuities can be rebooted every other decade, superhero comic fans were still surprised to wake up this morning to the news that DC Comics will publish prequels to one of its most sacrosanct properties: Alan Moore's Watchmen--and they will do so without the involvement of Mr. Moore.
Now, the latter bit of news is not much of a surprise. Alan Moore has famously distanced himself from Watchmen and superhero comics in general. What is surprising is this bold, wake-up-in-a-cold-sweat move on the part of DC. Given the reverence for the original work, a re-opening of the mythology will be met with the highest scrutiny, so DC smartly tapped some of the best writers and artists to lend weight and excellence to the project, including Darwyn Cooke, Brian Azzarello, Amanda Conner, Jae Lee, and Adam Hughes.
The Before Watchmen series will launch this summer in single issues, with a new issue every week. Full details and covers are below:
Before Watchmen includes:
RORSCHACH (4 issues) – Writer: Brian Azzarello. Artist: Lee Bermejo
Whether you think the original WATCHMEN is akin to Moby Dick — as Alan Mooreopined — or the Bible, as J. Michael Straczynski thought, it is definitely something — DC’s bestselling graphic novel of all time[*], a beloved classic taught in schools, one of Time’s Best 100 novels of the last 100 years, the book that defined grim and gritty. You name it. Like all great works, it’s multi-faceted.
So doing a “Scarlet” on it brings up every argument over whether comics are literature or licensing. You wouldn’t get much argument that Watchmen is literature and Moore is a literary figure. But there’s also the obsessive need of devotees to get MORE — there’s a reason why 12 volumes of the J.R.R. Tolkien’s jumbled, confused notes and scribblings were published as hardcover books. Once you enter a beloved fictional world you don’t want to leave — even if your hosts are yawning and looking longingly at their pajamas.
Complicating matters is an irony that gives the entire affair a level of meaning that Alan Moore himself could have scripted: although it’s being published strictly against its author’s wishes, BEFORE WATCHMEN is a work very much in the vein of the bulk of Alan Moore’s most acclaimed work—from Swamp Thing to Lost Girls, Moore has excelled at just that kind of literary reinvention. His most ambitious truly original work — Big Numbers — never got off the launchpad. Promethea and the rest of the ABC line remain as his originals, but still pastiches of existing tropes.
As you know, prequel writers Brian Azzarello, JMS, Darwyn Cooke and Len Wein have been doing a press tour this morning. Unsurprisingly, JMS has been the most talkative and most willing to give away the behind the scenes, such as an account of the super-secret summit where the writers hashed out the story — and decided that everyone had to do his own thing instead of a closely plotted “event.” Thank GOD for that! As he told CBR, JMS also came up with the thematic thread for the prequels:
In the course of that conversation, I mentioned my belief that there are five kinds of truth: the truth you tell to casual acquaintances, the truth you tell to you family and close friends, the truth you tell to only a very few people in your life, the truth you tell yourself and the truth you don’t admit, even to yourself. I was basically just blathering on, as I tend to do, but Dan seized on the last two of those truths as being the thematic core of the books. Darwyn did a whole discussion about this in one of his uploads, further formalizing this as the core of our story. In the end, the miniseries about the points and shadings between what we think we know about these characters, and the truth — what that says about them, and what it says about us.
15 Comments on After Before Watchmen: the industry reacts, last added: 2/1/2012
That two million is only since the movie trailer pushed it. It probably sold another two million in the twenty years before that.
But yeah. Each Asterix sells more.
Rich Johnston said, on 2/1/2012 12:50:00 PM
Also, how do you think JMS would react to Warners making Babylon Four when he didn;t want it?
Hmm, I think I’ll ask him.
Bill Peschel said, on 2/1/2012 12:51:00 PM
“But do you really think any of these creators stayed up at night for years wishing they could have a crack at Watchmen 2? Do Moby Dick or The Bible need an update to stay “relevant”? And how are books set in the past of the 80s relevant to today anyway?”
“Do Batman and Superman need an update to stay ‘relevant’? And how are books set in the past of the 1930s relevant to today anyway?”
Fixed it for you.
David Serchay said, on 2/1/2012 12:58:00 PM
“Also, how do you think JMS would react to Warners making Babylon Four when he didn;t want it?”
Well given that JMS told the story of Babylon 4……
KET said, on 2/1/2012 12:59:00 PM
They should probably go for more truth-in-advertising, and umbrella call these works WATCH MEN MAKE YET ANOTHER CYNICAL CASH GRAB AND PRETEND IT’S SOMETHING ELSE.
Steve said, on 2/1/2012 1:03:00 PM
It’ll probably sell a lot of copies, but I’m not much interested although some talented people are working on the different books. I wonder how DC decided which series deserved 4 issues & which deserved 6? Maybe when the books are released I’ll re-read Watchmen.
Diego Jourdan said, on 2/1/2012 1:22:00 PM
Watchmen is overrated, but i enjoyed the movie quite a bit :-)
Mario Boon said, on 2/1/2012 1:28:00 PM
Diego, you’re not my friend anymore!! :-)
Mikael said, on 2/1/2012 1:50:00 PM
“Watchmen is overrated.”
Right. Millions of copies sold. Defined a generation. Broke the mold. But it’s overrated because YOU didn’t like it. If we were gushing over Secret Wars II, then you have the right to say it’s being overrated. Watchmen has proved itself over and over. Thanks.
As to this comment: “But do you really think any of these creators stayed up at night for years wishing they could have a crack at Watchmen 2?” – well why don’t you ASK them? Especially since you stated: “Many of the creators working on these books are friends of mine — several, I would characterize as dear friends”. In other words, you can’t throw out such a generalized statement and see that as some kind of talking point to further your argument. Maybe they did wish they could play with those characters. Maybe they didn’t want to say no. DC is good at paying their creators well with royalties and such – why begrudge someone the chance to make money WHILE telling a kick ass story?
Sphinx Magoo said, on 2/1/2012 1:53:00 PM
You know, if there’d been an Internet in the old days, it would have split apart when Steve Ditko left Marvel. People would have said that Spider-Man was untouchable after he left because it was such a personal work. Yet somehow, here we are decades later after Ditko left and Stan Lee left (mostly), and Dan Slott and a bunch of other people are making a comfortable living off Spider-Man.
“Watchmen” has become this sacred volume and any idea of continuing stories in that universe is considered anathema. Consider, fans felt burned twice when Frank Miller returned to tell more stories about Batman. Why invite another possible disaster? I mean, they put both JMS and Adam Hughes on one book together? Really? I hope DC gets all those pages in before they publish that one…
The ones I’ll be putting my money behind are the ones with Darwyn Cooke’s name. You know why? Because I trust him to get his work in, I enjoy his voice, and he’s promised a different look at a character that might have deserved a little better. That’s something he did in New Frontier, and both Hal Jordan and Barry Allen took off like rockets after that.
JMS got some good points in by reminding everyone that Alan Moore got far by playing with other people’s toys. Well, now we get to see what other people do with the Charlton characters he played with. Sure, this could be the next “Scarlet”, but it could also be the next “Seven Percent Solution” and that wouldn’t be too bad.
Joseph said, on 2/1/2012 2:01:00 PM
*compilations, not complications
blacaucasian said, on 2/1/2012 2:01:00 PM
“Right. Millions of copies sold. Defined a generation. Broke the mold.”
You realize your defense of it in this manner is actually evidence for why some people consider it overrated, right? Obviously it’s his opinion that it’s overrated, he said it.
He has just as much right to his opinion to think its overrated as you do to think its not. That’s what makes opinions so great. Neither one of you is any more right or wrong then the other. It’s a subjective term.
Joseph said, on 2/1/2012 2:01:00 PM
I think Slott and commenter Sam got it exactly right, but here’s another thing: People wanted MORE Hobbit/LOTR stories, at least I did, which is why I read those jumbled and confusing note complications. But did anyone read Watchmen and think :I really wish I could read MORE adventures of the Watchmen”? I really don’t think so.
Diego Jourdan said, on 2/1/2012 2:02:00 PM
I’m not saying it isn’t good, i’m saying it’s overrated because the fans of superhero comic-books (mainly 40 year old men in 9 y.o mindsets) don’t know any better… and like Mr. Moore himself mentioned, still cling to old ideas :P
Chris Hero said, on 2/1/2012 2:32:00 PM
@Steven Stwalley
Yeah, I’m with you…this is mostly just boring. It’s sure as Hell not going to appeal to people who aren’t already in the fold as comic readers. I’m not exactly sure what audience they’re going for here.
I’m sitting out for ethical reasons…but to those who want this? You and I will never see eye to eye, so enjoy.
So, you see, I have some strange sort of orbital relationship to WATCHMEN. I feel pretty honored to be working it. I’m looking forward to drawing all these characters. Yes, DOCTOR MANHATTAN is an unusual choice to assign me to, but I’m assured that DC has a plan! Maybe they believe that, since I’m well-associated with drawing female anatomy, I’m qualified to handle blue penises. Wait… that doesn’t sound right…
Truly, this is Hughes’s chance to prove that “Comics objectify men too!”
Meanwhile, the JMS/Hughes team would be the first on everyone’s potentially deadline busting list. JMS says he’s written all the script however, and Hughes seems motivated.
2 Comments on Adam Hughes speaks on on drawing blue penises for BEFORE WATCHMEN, last added: 2/3/2012
The comic book Watchmen, penned by Alan Moore and drawn by artist Dave Gibbons, is one of the most revered books in DC Comics’ nearly century-spanning catalogue. However, their treatment of the work’s creators has always been more than a little murky. Many people both within and outside the industry know that DC’s relationship with Moore […]
Whether you think the original WATCHMEN is akin to Moby Dick — as Alan Moore 
I don’t think even Dave Gibbons, who generally seems to be pretty chill about Watchmen, would go along with this. That’s probably why they didn’t ask him. They didn’t think they’d get his blessing and didn’t care if he opposed it.
I wonder if they’re going to actually use the Watchmen characters, perhaps instead using some of the storytelling motifs and using the Charlton characters they were based on….
*Note – I have only read Rebirth #1 at this stage so don’t beat me up because I haven’t read a DC comic in years. :-)
Either DC knew he’d say no, or they don’t care what he thinks. Says it all really.
All you fanboys happy about defending ‘Before Watchmen’ now, are you?
Since Dave Gibbons doesn’t own the Watchmen characters, There isn’t any necessity to ask his blessing or permission. It would have been a courtesy, but entertainment conglomerates are not usually big on courtesy. Does anyone seriously think that it would have stopped Geoff Johns and DC from going in this direction if they’d asked and Mr. Gibbons had told them it was a bad idea and nothing he could endorse? If it’s not something that readers can get behind, then those readers needn’t buy it. Those who don’t have a problem with it: enjoy what could turn out to be a pretty good story.
Gibbons has style.
Not his characters. Who gives a flying fruck.
I’m with Sean and Skottie. Who gives a shit about creators? We like comics. Comics are put out by corporate executives and lawyers who make contracts and sell merchandise. Writers and artists just think up ideas and write them down and draw them. Big deal! Comics readers are into contracts and legal ownership and plastic toys made in Indonesia. The creative people don’t matter!.
Does Dave Gibbons own the characters? If the answer is “no,” and they were products of “work for hire” and belong to DC, why would DC check with him first? Grow up.
[…] Well, in an interview during MCM London Comic Con recently, several reporters asked Gibbons about the fact that Dr. Manhattan was going to be a part of the actual DC Universe, and an adversary at that. He then told the reporters “no comment,” and when a follow-up question asked if DC had even sent him an email about using Dr. Manhattan, he replied, “No, they didn’t.” Time to make some calls, DC. You already have one Watchmen co-creator hating on you…you don’t want two. [Comics Beat] […]
Kevin, I agree completely! The legacy of a literary classic shouldn’t be decided by the people who made it! It should be decided by the people who took over the jobs of other people who came out ahead in a legal negotiation twenty-five years ago! That’s why we’re all still reading the J.B. Lippincott Company’s To Kill a Mockingbird and Random House’s Ulysses. It’s why J.K. Rowling has never been consulted in the use and exploitation of that Harry Potter bloke! The business of comics is exactly the way it should be!