PDA

View Full Version : Before Watchmen



batfan08
04-14-2012, 10:43 AM
It kicks off in June, but DC has already started a viral marketing campaign with the launch of newfrontiersman.net I just figured that we needed a thread in the right place now. I'd be much obliged if we could keep the ideological "DC vs. Alan Moore" arguments in the other thread.

kobayashi93
04-14-2012, 04:47 PM
Meh. As a casual Watchmen fan I'm looking forward to it.

Can't wait to get my hands on the AH! covers.

Sweet Rabbit
04-15-2012, 02:55 AM
I'm against DC doing this

KBA
04-15-2012, 06:23 PM
I'm against DC doing this

Agreed. It's not even a DC vs Moore thing for me. The original was perfect as was. No interest in sequels, prequels, or side tales.

batfan08
04-15-2012, 08:20 PM
Why be against it then? Just because you don't have an interest in it? I'll check it out, but I don't see how it would tarnish the original in any way.Whether this succeeds or fails, Watchmen will always be a masterpiece, and especially if you're one of those who don't read Before Watchmen, your experience wouldn't be affected anyway.

KBA
04-15-2012, 09:08 PM
Why be against it then? Just because you don't have an interest in it? I'll check it out, but I don't see how it would tarnish the original in any way.Whether this succeeds or fails, Watchmen will always be a masterpiece, and especially if you're one of those who don't read Before Watchmen, your experience wouldn't be affected anyway.

Because it's a project that isn't born out of the type of originality the first was. This is DC slapping the milking machine on the original's utters. One could argue I'm a hypocrite because Marvel's been doing that for decades with their characters, but Watchmen's yarns were so tightly spun from the outset; it was a complete work with an ending, not an ongoing revolving around superhero character dynamic.

EVILFACE
04-15-2012, 09:21 PM
I don't buy that though. The original Watchmen serries/gn will always stand on it's own.

Just as the crap ass Halloween 4-RZ H2 have no affect on the greatness of Halloween.

KBA
04-15-2012, 09:27 PM
I don't buy that though. The original Watchmen serries/gn will always stand on it's own.

Just as the crap ass Halloween 4-RZ H2 have no affect on the greatness of Halloween.

Those Halloween entries ride on the coattails of greatness. While the original remains great, its name, its saga, is affected which sucks. Watchmen was its own single entry for decades in comics. For me, it's sad to see that go away, and I don't see the point other than $$$. So ____ it.

hairlesswookiee
04-16-2012, 08:14 AM
I'm going to read it just to see what they're purpose is with this book. I enjoyed the original, but feel it's a little overhyped the past few years.

Kabukiman
04-16-2012, 09:11 AM
The only new Watchmen title I'm interested in reading is Watchmen Babies.

IrishJedi
05-03-2012, 08:55 AM
This project is fundamentally flawed on a moral level alone. The more they hype it, the more that unethical rabbit hole widens.

galactiboy
05-03-2012, 09:00 AM
The only new Watchmen title I'm interested in reading is Watchmen Babies.

:lol :lol :lol Yes, but only if there is a Nanny who you only ever see her stocking legs :lecture

http://assets.flavorwire.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/nanny.jpg




In all seriousness I'd have to agree with the majority here, no real need for this and I think anything done here will be ingenuine at best, and just godawful at worst. If I can take a look at it for free I'd do that, but no money of mine will support it.

batfan08
05-05-2012, 07:13 PM
This project is fundamentally flawed on a moral level alone. The more they hype it, the more that unethical rabbit hole widens.


I'd be much obliged if we could keep the ideological "DC vs. Alan Moore" arguments in the other thread.

We already discussed this in the other thread, and, again, I would be much obliged if we could keep this civil by keeping it informational. As far as I know, the other thread hasn't been decommissioned, and I would prefer if any "moral debates" stayed there.

intothevoid
05-05-2012, 07:15 PM
This project is fundamentally flawed on a moral level alone. The more they hype it, the more that unethical rabbit hole widens.

Finally, something we can agree 100% on :hi5: :lol

EDIT: Sorry Batfan - just saw your request to keep this thread focused.

Nothing more to add from me...

batfan08
06-06-2012, 12:31 PM
Well, the event has started. Minutemen came out today, and I liked it. I'm not sure it has the depth that Moore's work had, but it does seem like Darwyn Cooke has a good grasp on the characters, Hollis Mason definitely feels like Hollis Mason, rather than an interpretation of Hollis Mason.

IrishJedi
06-06-2012, 01:58 PM
I read a display copy at my LCS.

Meh. It's not horrible, but certainly nothing ground-breaking or worth all the brouhaha. At least not yet. And this should probably be the best title of the bunch.

My initial reaction that this is nothing more than a cash-grab by DC & company remains firmly intact.

IrishJedi
06-06-2012, 02:13 PM
Also, there's already at least one dumb (if small) continuity error. In the first issue of the first title released (written/drawn by the headlining talent).

You would think they'd dot every "I" and cross every "T" with this, at least out of the gate. But apparently not.

batfan08
06-06-2012, 06:10 PM
May I ask what the small continuity error was? I don't believe I caught it. Not too sure about The Curse of the Crimson Corsair, either. Tales of the Black Freighter worked within the context of the original piece, I hope this story serves a similar purpose.

Duck
06-06-2012, 06:44 PM
I enjoyed it alot. Glad I decided to order all the titles.

crows
06-06-2012, 07:55 PM
Also, there's already at least one dumb (if small) continuity error. In the first issue of the first title released (written/drawn by the headlining talent).

You would think they'd dot every "I" and cross every "T" with this, at least out of the gate. But apparently not.


May I ask what the small continuity error was? I don't believe I caught it. Not too sure about The Curse of the Crimson Corsair, either. Tales of the Black Freighter worked within the context of the original piece, I hope this story serves a similar purpose.

I am curious about this as well

IrishJedi
06-07-2012, 08:51 AM
Mason's inner-dialogue while writing Under The Hood explicitly refers to The Comedian by his actual name (Edward Blake). This is way wrong. It was never publicly known that Blake was The Comedian (hence Rorschach's discovery in the very first issue of WATCHMEN). It was never even indicated whether Mason himself personally knew who he was. In WATCHMEN only Dr. Manhattan (another government agent) and, of course, Sally Jupiter knew his true identity. And even if you make the case that Mason somehow knows his name too, there's no way it's in Under The Hood.

That's a pretty damn lazy flub, if you ask me. And a very bad way to get this whole project started. You'd think they'd go over this stuff with a fine-toothed comb given the shaky moral ground of this endeavor. But right off the bat they're not doing themselves any favors.

galactiboy
06-07-2012, 09:55 AM
Sounds like Lucasfilm is working on this :lol

Sweet Rabbit
06-07-2012, 02:19 PM
Mason's inner-dialogue while writing Under The Hood explicitly refers to The Comedian by his actual name (Edward Blake). This is way wrong. It was never publicly known that Blake was The Comedian (hence Rorschach's discovery in the very first issue of WATCHMEN). It was never even indicated whether Mason himself personally knew who he was. In WATCHMEN only Dr. Manhattan (another government agent) and, of course, Sally Jupiter knew his true identity. And even if you make the case that Mason somehow knows his name too, there's no way it's in Under The Hood.

That's a pretty damn lazy flub, if you ask me. And a very bad way to get this whole project started. You'd think they'd go over this stuff with a fine-toothed comb given the shaky moral ground of this endeavor. But right off the bat they're not doing themselves any favors.

blasphemers :mad:

Deak Starkiller
06-07-2012, 02:30 PM
____ this book. My constructive criticism is now over.

Calvin Candie
06-07-2012, 02:41 PM
im a big watchmen fan and would prefer this not to happen.
but sense it is i hope its good.
i hope they dont try to make a film of it.

batfan08
06-07-2012, 05:21 PM
Mason's inner-dialogue while writing Under The Hood explicitly refers to The Comedian by his actual name (Edward Blake). This is way wrong. It was never publicly known that Blake was The Comedian (hence Rorschach's discovery in the very first issue of WATCHMEN). It was never even indicated whether Mason himself personally knew who he was. In WATCHMEN only Dr. Manhattan (another government agent) and, of course, Sally Jupiter knew his true identity. And even if you make the case that Mason somehow knows his name too, there's no way it's in Under The Hood.

That's a pretty damn lazy flub, if you ask me. And a very bad way to get this whole project started. You'd think they'd go over this stuff with a fine-toothed comb given the shaky moral ground of this endeavor. But right off the bat they're not doing themselves any favors.

It seems like this is an early draft of Under the Hood, though. There's always the possibility that he edited Blake's identity out of the book.:dunno

Jair
06-10-2012, 03:18 PM
I'm just going to wait on trade for these, I think DC did a good job with the writers and artists for this. I'm not a huge Moore fan I've always preferred Promethia and From Hell as his best works (IMO).

Anytime Darwyn Cooke, AH, Azz and Amanda Conner are involved with something I'll give it a shot.

Evan

crows
06-20-2012, 11:19 PM
How are the new books going? did they release the Comedian? someone on facebook had a pic,

batfan08
06-20-2012, 11:40 PM
Yeah, Comedian came out today. I've been liking them so far, but it's difficult to get a beat on them. I'm not sure of what they're trying to accomplish (I.e. Is each writer thinking "What would Alan Moore do?" or are they just focused on telling the best stories that they can think of and that they want to tell?).

IrishJedi
06-21-2012, 07:57 PM
How are the new books going? did they release the Comedian? someone on facebook had a pic,

Comedian #1 was the worst one yet. It's also a retcon. According to this, not only did Blake not assassinate Kennedy, he was actually best buds with him and RFK. When he hears of the assassination report on TV he actually has a bro moment with Moloch, who is crying. I ____ you not. Oh, and Comedian kills Marilyn Monroe at the behest of Jackie Kenneday. Such utter hogwash.

Maybe Azzarello is The Comedian, because this entire issue is one sick ____ing joke on anyone familiar with the character.

surfin4
06-21-2012, 08:13 PM
hope they dont just do a milking job on this......watchmen was one of the few superhero movies i actually liked

batfan08
06-21-2012, 08:59 PM
Comedian #1 was the worst one yet. It's also a retcon. According to this, not only did Blake not assassinate Kennedy, he was actually best buds with him and RFK. When he hears of the assassination report on TV he actually has a bro moment with Moloch, who is crying. I ____ you not. Oh, and Comedian kills Marilyn Monroe at the behest of Jackie Kenneday. Such utter hogwash.

Maybe Azzarello is The Comedian, because this entire issue is one sick ____ing joke on anyone familiar with the character.

Bull____. It's not a retcon because it never even happened. It was never expressly stated that The Comedian killed JFK in Watchmen. You're basing your facts on a film adaptation that was never even approved by Alan Moore (which, in an ironic turn, seems to be the very reason why you loathe the very idea of these prequels).

Alex Logan
06-22-2012, 09:16 AM
Bull____. It's not a retcon because it never even happened. It was never expressly stated that The Comedian killed JFK in Watchmen. You're basing your facts on a film adaptation that was never even approved by Alan Moore (which, in an ironic turn, seems to be the very reason why you loathe the very idea of these prequels).

Yeah, from what I remember The Comedian didn't kill JFK in the novel.

thenammagazine
06-22-2012, 09:21 AM
Bull____. It's not a retcon because it never even happened. It was never expressly stated that The Comedian killed JFK in Watchmen. You're basing your facts on a film adaptation that was never even approved by Alan Moore (which, in an ironic turn, seems to be the very reason why you loathe the very idea of these prequels).


http://sideshowcollectors.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=1611&pictureid=23310

xYx
06-22-2012, 02:26 PM
hope they dont just do a milking job on this......watchmen was one of the few superhero movies i actually liked

I LOLed at this.

surfin4
06-22-2012, 09:16 PM
I LOLed at this.

I could lol back but will refraine and take the high road on my high horse:nana:

Alex Logan
06-23-2012, 12:58 AM
I could lol back but will refraine and take the high road on my high horse:nana:

I don't think you understand why he's laughing. :dunno

surfin4
06-23-2012, 12:05 PM
[QUOTE=Alex Logan;4574367]I don't think you understand why he's laughing. :dunno[/Q
please illuminate me

Alex Logan
06-23-2012, 12:33 PM
please illuminate me

This is a thread about Watchmen novels and you're talking about the movie. You're also talking about them milking Before Watchmen. By saying you liked the movie some people might assume that the film was your intoduction to Watchmen and that you haven't read the first novel.

surfin4
06-23-2012, 01:22 PM
This is a thread about Watchmen novels and you're talking about the movie. You're also talking about them milking Before Watchmen. By saying you liked the movie some people might assume that the film was your intoduction to Watchmen and that you haven't read the first novel.

Well your right!... never heard of watchmen before the movie kinda suprised they had novels thought they were a comic book or graphic novel kinda thing ........You continue to live you continue to learn :dunno......cheers!

Alex Logan
06-23-2012, 03:02 PM
Well your right!... never heard of watchmen before the movie kinda suprised they had novels thought they were a comic book or graphic novel kinda thing ........You continue to live you continue to learn :dunno......cheers!

So you see why then? The novel is a graphic novel. Same thing.

thenammagazine
06-23-2012, 04:23 PM
So you see why then? The novel is a graphic novel. Same thing.

Not really, no. If you're going to be retentive enough to correct him, make sure you get it right, yourself. :wink1:

crows
06-23-2012, 06:38 PM
So you see why then? The novel is a graphic novel. Same thing.

it is not the same, just saying, :lol

crows
06-24-2012, 06:52 AM
I have a question about the original novel, about Adrian

Why Didn't Adrian kill Rorschach? that makes no sense to me, he killed the comedian because he knew too much, he infects people with Cancer to make Dr. Manhatthan leave, yet he wont kill Rorschach? the crazy homeless psychopath? someone said once that is because Adrian didn't think he was a big threat, but he goes as far as to frame him to go to jail and make him realize he was right? like, wtf? I never understood why they wrote it like that, What could have possibly happened if he killed him? I mean sure Dan would have suspected something but he didn't have the insight Rorschach had. he went trough a lot of trouble to frame him, put him in jail, I dont know that made no sense to me

Alex Logan
06-24-2012, 03:23 PM
Not really, no. If you're going to be retentive enough to correct him, make sure you get it right, yourself. :wink1:


it is not the same, just saying, :lol

Time Magazine would disagree with you. They do say it's a graphic novel/comic book, but the rest of the list is all novels. It's the same thing.

http://entertainment.time.com/2005/10/16/all-time-100-novels/#how-we-picked-the-list

Alex Logan
06-24-2012, 03:25 PM
I have a question about the original novel, about Adrian

Why Didn't Adrian kill Rorschach? that makes no sense to me, he killed the comedian because he knew too much, he infects people with Cancer to make Dr. Manhatthan leave, yet he wont kill Rorschach? the crazy homeless psychopath? someone said once that is because Adrian didn't think he was a big threat, but he goes as far as to frame him to go to jail and make him realize he was right? like, wtf? I never understood why they wrote it like that, What could have possibly happened if he killed him? I mean sure Dan would have suspected something but he didn't have the insight Rorschach had. he went trough a lot of trouble to frame him, put him in jail, I dont know that made no sense to me

The reason is simple. If Rorschach turned up dead the rest of heroes would know something was going on. And we would no story. :wink1:

crows
06-24-2012, 04:00 PM
The reason is simple. If Rorschach turned up dead the rest of heroes would know something was going on. And we would no story. :wink1:

i dont think so, the only one that would care would be Dan but he would have no clues to who did it, a mask killer theory would be better than going through all that trouble to frame him. even if they believed his mask killer theory they had no clues or anything

Alex Logan
06-24-2012, 05:36 PM
i dont think so, the only one that would care would be Dan but he would have no clues to who did it, a mask killer theory would be better than going through all that trouble to frame him. even if they believed his mask killer theory they had no clues or anything

Adrian didn't really go though that much trouble to frame him, Rorschach made it too easy. With Dan and Lori occupied tying to break him out of jail, Adrian was free to finish his own plans. By killing Rorschach and sending Manhattan off earth, Adrian would drive Dan and Lori to move closer him because they would believe that Adrian might be next. Two hero killings would equal a pattern and he couldn't afford to have anyone around.

And besides, Rorschach lived on the street and no one know who he was. Pretty hard to kill someone when you don't who or where they are.

thenammagazine
06-24-2012, 06:02 PM
Time Magazine would disagree with you. They do say it's a graphic novel/comic book, but the rest of the list is all novels. It's the same thing.

http://entertainment.time.com/2005/10/16/all-time-100-novels/#how-we-picked-the-list

Try to spin it any way you want, you couldn't be more wrong. Using an author who's clearly ignorant of the terms (or an over-correcting editor who's too lazy to look ____ up) to back your post doesn't make it right. A graphic novel is not the same thing as a novel.

devilof76
06-24-2012, 09:22 PM
I guess differentiation only counts when it's written. If it's not in Time magazine, Virginia, it must not be so. :lol

Sweet Rabbit
06-25-2012, 02:10 AM
It's a graphic novel :lol

IrishJedi
06-27-2012, 08:22 AM
Bull____. It's not a retcon because it never even happened. It was never expressly stated that The Comedian killed JFK in Watchmen. You're basing your facts on a film adaptation that was never even approved by Alan Moore (which, in an ironic turn, seems to be the very reason why you loathe the very idea of these prequels).

The notion of Comedian killing JFK was indeed implicit in the original comic. Yes, it was made clearly explicit in the credits sequence of the film. But, as you pointed out, that was just an adaptation, not a claimed official prequel/sequel supposed to be canon (which is quite a difference).

And even if you poo-poo the idea of Comedian having assassinated JFK in the original work, that character would never in a million years be buddy-buddy with the Kennedy's. Before Watchmen: Comedian #1 was awful, because the core character himself doesn't ring true.

This has already been a problem in at least 2 of the 3 issues released so far... original Watchmen characters doing things that are completely out of character. Even most fan-fiction doesn't break that cardinal rule.

As I said before, we're only 3 books into a 35 book run... but they're not off to a good start. At all.

batfan08
06-27-2012, 08:07 PM
Where does it implicitly state that The Comedian assassinated JFK in Watchmen? I don't seem to recall it...:dunno

thenammagazine
06-27-2012, 08:54 PM
Wasn't he in Dallas the day JFK was shot using his "bodyguard" status for Nixon as a cover up?

IrishJedi
06-27-2012, 10:17 PM
Wasn't he in Dallas the day JFK was shot using his "bodyguard" status for Nixon as a cover up?

Yep. Blake even makes a joke about it at a banquet in the book (I can't recall the exact line at the moment). In any case, it was definitely implied that he was involved, if not the actual shooter. Before Watchmen turns that on its head... for seemingly no reason. It even uses the moment of the assassination for Comedian to go all soft with Moloch, another moment totally out of character (just like playing football and making bets with his chums JFK & RFK and turning down sex with Jackie Kennedy because he "respects" JFK too much). This is not the Comedian from WATCHMEN.

batfan08
06-27-2012, 10:27 PM
Huh, alrighty then. I was wrong. That being said, I think it's about time that I dust off my copy of the original and proceed with my annual re-reading. I do agree, though, that the whole Jackie O. thing was out of character, it seems like Eddie Blake's always been a first class koozehound. :lol

IrishJedi
08-22-2012, 08:59 AM
Okay, so we're about 1/3 of the way through this "Before Watchmen" gimmick and so far the same adage has held since the first issue: Awesome artwork, pedestrian-to-awful writing.

And never was that dichotomy more apparent than in Dr. Manhattan #1. AH's artwork is exquisitely amazing. No surprise there. But the writing/story??? OMG... Let me say this: Either JMS is being a prick and obviously trolling WATCHMEN fans (and the original work itself), or he's the worst writer imaginable. What a cluster****.

batfan08
08-22-2012, 11:43 AM
I haven't read Doctor Manhattan yet, but the way I see it is: Alan Moore despises anything commercial done with his work, so he clearly denounces Before Watchmen, and Dave Gibbons said it's not canon. Personally, I've been enjoying it, but, then again, I didn't jump in with utterly loathing it to the very core as a prerequisite. I don't think it's as bad as you make it out to be, Irish. I know that we've butted heads over this entire concept, and you hated it from the very beginning.

I'm enjoying it for what it is, and what it is ain't Watchmen (despite the characters and title being used).

IrishJedi
08-22-2012, 02:30 PM
I hated the idea of it, and don't like that it's happening, yes. But I actually am giving it a fair shot. I'm reading them. If my opinions on these books after reading them were solely agenda-based as you imply, I'd trash them completely. But I've pointed out many times that the artwork is fantastic, for the most part. It's the writing that is average to just plain awful. Dr. Manhattan, The Comedian and Nite Owl are laughably bad, especially. If it weren't for Adam Hughes' outstanding interior art, Dr. Manhattan #1 wouldn't be worth the paper it's printed on.

I'll say this, though... Out of all of them, Ozymandias has been a pretty good read so far. I never would have expected that. To now it's been the only one with both great art and an interesting, well-written story.

Don't get me started on Crimson Corsair, though. :lol

batfan08
08-22-2012, 03:38 PM
I agree about the Crimson Corsair. What's the point? All that I can picture is the DC editorial staff gathered around a table, and Didio blurting out "We need a pirate story! Watchmen had a pirate story!" I'm with you on Ozymandias, too.

It was a shock to me because I thought it would be the one I would dislike the most, but it's definitely an interesting read. Rorschach was okay, but it's too soon to tell for me. The art, though, is fantastic. I've been enjoying both "Cooke" books, I have a soft-spot for period pieces, and, thus far, his Minute Men hasn't exactly been bad. Silk Spectre's pretty good, but it's certainly not at the top of my list; one of the "pedestrian" titles, as you referred to them. All in all, I'm glad you gave them a fair shake, and, at the end of the day, these are books that'll probably gather dust in my back issue boxes. No genre defining classics here, but they're enjoyable, and, for what it's worth, I don't hate them.

IrishJedi
08-23-2012, 07:17 AM
Yeah, the art has been stellar on all of them, except perhaps The Comedian, which feels a few steps below Jones' potential. His covers have been awesome, though. In fact, the covers for ALL of these have absolutely been my favorite thing about this. Hell, there are several of them already that I'd probably get as prints.

IrishJedi
09-06-2012, 07:42 AM
So... The latest issue (#3) jumps another Watchmen shark.

Sally can't locate Laurie (who, if you've been following this series has run away and started hanging out and drugging it up with other hippie kids). So, she calls Hollis, who basically tells her "Leave her alone. She'll come back." So, she gets pissed, tells Hollis off... and has The Comedian (yes, the Edward Blake Comedian) go and locate Laurie and take care of her boyfriend.

Think about this for a second... Sally Jupiter contacts Edward Blake to go find teenage Laurie.

Jesus , have these people even read the original work??

:slap

On second thought, perhaps Blake himself would love this Before Watchmen stuff. It is just a big joke, right?

crows
09-06-2012, 08:51 AM
So... The latest issue (#3) jumps another Watchmen shark.

Sally can't locate Laurie (who, if you've been following this series has run away and started hanging out and drugging it up with other hippie kids). So, she calls Hollis, who basically tells her "Leave her alone. She'll come back." So, she gets pissed, tells Hollis off... and has The Comedian (yes, the Edward Blake Comedian) go and locate Laurie and take care of her boyfriend.

Think about this for a second... Sally Jupiter contacts Edward Blake to go find teenage Laurie.

Jesus , have these people even read the original work??

:slap

On second thought, perhaps Blake himself would love this Before Watchmen stuff. It is just a big joke, right?

what the F__k seriously? what the F__ are these people doing? :cuckoo:

Sweet Rabbit
09-06-2012, 02:24 PM
what the F__k seriously? what the F__ are these people doing? :cuckoo:

blasphemy at it's finest :slap

IrishJedi
09-10-2012, 06:32 AM
Oh yeah... the whole thing is so stupid that I forgot to mention the silliest trivial (and laughably contrived part):

Those smiley face earrings & necklace that Laurie is inexplicably wearing in Before Watchmen? Blake steals one off of her nightstand as she sleeps... and it's what will eventually be THE smiley face button:

http://media.dcentertainment.com/sites/default/files/SILKS_3_22.jpg

:slap :slap :slap

Seriously, they have to be trolling us with this stuff. I honestly couldn't have imagined anything as ridiculous.

karamazov80
09-10-2012, 07:03 AM
Why do I feel extremely nauseous all of a sudden?

This series isn't far removed from this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n5jIUZuk0JQ

IrishJedi
09-10-2012, 07:50 AM
It really is mind-numbing, especially since they had to know this stuff would be under a microscope. But the problem is you don't even have to try to find major stupid problems in these books... they're right there on the surface and in your face, like a huge white-head on the nose of the person sitting across from you at the dinner table.

It's baffling that the writing has been this bad given the precarious situation they were in with this endeavor in the first place. We should be getting the best effort from everyone... writers, artists, editorial staff, etc. Instead, only the artists seem to give a crap at all. Then again, 2 of the artists are also responsible for some of the poop writing, so...

Khev
09-10-2012, 08:19 AM
Oh yeah... the whole thing is so stupid that I forgot to mention the silliest trivial (and laughably contrived part):

Those smiley face earrings & necklace that Laurie is inexplicably wearing in Before Watchmen? Blake steals one off of her nightstand as she sleeps... and it's what will eventually be THE smiley face button:

http://media.dcentertainment.com/sites/default/files/SILKS_3_22.jpg

:slap :slap :slap

Seriously, they have to be trolling us with this stuff. I honestly couldn't have imagined anything as ridiculous.

Just so I can get an idea of how clueless these writers are how did the Comedian get the smiley face in the original series?

IrishJedi
09-10-2012, 09:26 AM
It was never explained. It doesn't need to be. But... it was part of his "Comedian" motif as far as back his initial 1940 costume, which had a jester-like smiley face on his belt. The button always seemed like a natural progression from that. He doesn't need to "find" it. He's already The Comedian for crissakes.

The biggest problem isn't that it's just contrived, unnecessary and silly... but the notion that Blake would get the smiley face button from Laurie, of all people. They are absolutely estranged in the original book. Only meet once or twice, and she doesn't know he's her father until after he's dead. He himself never even acknowledges it. Sally (the mother) doesn't want him to have ANYTHING to do with her whatsoever. She even jumps all in his **** for basically just saying "hi" to Laurie after the one and only Crimebusters meeting. So to think she'd call him to go find her is just so completely off-base and out of character it would be the equivalent of alternate-universe "What if?" stuff in a standard superhero comic. It doesn't jive with the original work and its characters AT ALL.

These are absolutely shaping up to be the comic book world's equivalent of the SW prequels, except maybe worse from a canon perspective. At least in the SW prequels the characters are basically who they should be and the plot makes sense in progression to the originals. In Before Watchmen, that stuff is nuttier than squirrel turds.

crows
09-10-2012, 10:48 AM
oh, how cute, daddy Comedian.... :rotfl:rotfl

if I remember correctly The Comedian had smiley looking face on his belt when he was with the Minutemen,
they even show it in the movie
http://i206.photobucket.com/albums/bb197/F-N-S/Misc/1940ComedianBeltBuckle.jpg

I always figured the smiley face pin was just from that, just carrying the smiley motive to the new suit, didn't really need an explanation when you consider he had a smiley looking face as a buckle when he was younger

IrishJedi
09-10-2012, 11:08 AM
Exactly. :lecture

batfan08
09-10-2012, 11:51 AM
I give up, I'm throwing in the towel; you win, Irish. :lol

IrishJedi
09-10-2012, 02:59 PM
I don't blame you. This stuff is so bad it's indefensible. :lol

Seriously, though, I'm actually surprised by the lack of effort on these (in the writing area, anyway... again, the art has been great). You'd have thought they'd have gone out of their way to deliver. Instead we're just getting what was some of our worst fears: official fan-fiction. Actually, that's not quite accurate. At least fans of WATCHMEN would have some knowledge of the original work and its characters. :monkey1

That said, I still think Ozymandias has been pretty well-written so far. That's probably because, unlike the others, it's not trying so painfully hard to affect the original WATCHMEN with contrived & out-of-character "You think you know Watchmen? Think again!" bullcrap.

I'm still going to continue to read these. I feel somehow obligated. But about halfway through the naysayers have (to this point) been vindicated. DC and the writers aren't dotting I's and crossing T's here... they're pooping this stuff out of their asses. Unfathomable.

crows
09-10-2012, 03:16 PM
I don't blame you. This stuff is so bad it's indefensible. :lol

Seriously, though, I'm actually surprised by the lack of effort on these (in the writing area, anyway... again, the art has been great). You'd have thought they'd have gone out of their way to deliver. Instead we're just getting what was some of our worst fears: official fan-fiction. Actually, that's not quite accurate. At least fans of WATCHMEN would have some knowledge of the original work and its characters. :monkey1

That said, I still think Ozymandias has been pretty well-written so far. That's probably because, unlike the others, it's not trying so painfully hard to affect the original WATCHMEN with contrived & out-of-character "You think you know Watchmen? Think again!" bullcrap.

I'm still going to continue to read these. I feel somehow obligated. But about halfway through the naysayers have (to this point) been vindicated. DC and the writers aren't dotting I's and crossing T's here... they're pooping this stuff out of their asses. Unfathomable.

from what I read from you guys and looking at what they are doing this is what is pissing me off the most, trying to change things for the sake of either shock or surprise,

at least fan fiction respects the original stories in most cases

batfan08
09-10-2012, 03:20 PM
I don't blame you. This stuff is so bad it's indefensible. :lol

Seriously, though, I'm actually surprised by the lack of effort on these (in the writing area, anyway... again, the art has been great). You'd have thought they'd have gone out of their way to deliver. Instead we're just getting what was some of our worst fears: official fan-fiction. Actually, that's not quite accurate. At least fans of WATCHMEN would have some knowledge of the original work and its characters. :monkey1

That said, I still think Ozymandias has been pretty well-written so far. That's probably because, unlike the others, it's not trying so painfully hard to affect the original WATCHMEN with contrived & out-of-character "You think you know Watchmen? Think again!" bullcrap.

I'm still going to continue to read these. I feel somehow obligated. But about halfway through the naysayers have (to this point) been vindicated. DC and the writers aren't dotting I's and crossing T's here... they're pooping this stuff out of their asses. Unfathomable.

At this point, the art is mostly what draws me in. I try not to be too critical, but, like you, one of the few reasons I continue to get them is that I feel I might as well finish up. I'll probably get Moloch, too (just for the hell of it).:lol

IrishJedi
09-10-2012, 03:37 PM
Maybe I'll start enjoying them more if I just flip through the books and look at the art instead if actually reading them, too. :lol

IrishJedi
09-13-2012, 08:05 AM
Comedian #3 didn't sucker punch our balls too bad this week. Actually a pretty interesting read. And there was at least one clever bit: The Comedian goes to L.A. to squash the Watts Riots and he goes into the 'hood wearing Smiley Face makeup that basically is mocking blackface/whiteface just to needle the locals. :lol Wow.

Azzarello pulls the punches from there, though, with Blake basically siding with the rioters (enticing them to loot) and his big "punchline" is throwing poop in the face of the police commissioner. Funny, but not quite Comedian, who'd be more keen to be out smashing skulls. Hell at one point he even gets hit in the face with a thrown brick and does... nothing. Yeah, right.

karamazov80
09-13-2012, 08:39 AM
Actually, coming back to the thing with Sally sending the Comedian to find Laurie, it might make some sense if she doesn't have other contacts who she thinks could be as good at getting the job done. And knowing he is her father, you can assume he would take care to do the job as well as he could. Even if Sally didn't want him to have anything to really do with her, choosing him to find Laurie if she went missing might not be such a bad idea.

Not defending these prequels by any means, just thinking that that specific decision might not be as bizarre as it seems on its surface.

IrishJedi
09-13-2012, 08:51 AM
Well, it's not like she got kidnapped or anything. She just ran away. And she's been in contact with "Uncle" Hollis, who knows she's okay. He even tells Sally to calm down and back off and eventually Laurie will come back home but she's actually pushing her away. So she basically tells Hollis to F off, hangs up and then calls Blake to go locate her. Sorry, not buying it. Not in a million years.

batfan08
09-16-2012, 06:14 AM
I'm starting to like my idea more and more. If DC absolutely had to do something with the property, do a Watchmen "Redux" where you get some of the top artists in the industry to "cover" a few pages/chapters/whatever in a tribute to the original. You wouldn't piss the hardcore fans off as much, since it's still Moore's original work, but you'd still intrigue people enough to probably buy it.

Sweet Rabbit
09-16-2012, 09:13 AM
I'm starting to like my idea more and more. If DC absolutely had to do something with the property, do a Watchmen "Redux" where you get some of the top artists in the industry to "cover" a few pages/chapters/whatever in a tribute to the original. You wouldn't piss the hardcore fans off as much, since it's still Moore's original work, but you'd still intrigue people enough to probably buy it.

I think DC has already burnt that bridge :lol

IrishJedi
09-18-2012, 06:58 AM
Okay, so Before Watchmen sucks overall, and the idea of JMS writing yet another series (Moloch) makes me want to kick puppies.

But... this cover is amazing:

http://media.dcentertainment.com/sites/default/files/BW_MOLOCH_Cv1_solicit.jpg



As is this cover for Comedian #5:

http://media.dcentertainment.com/sites/default/files/galleries/file/ajax/field_galleryimages/und/form-zCI40b5TINrwhr4bmEBU89jXvk7075XG66zN7CWA6qc/BW_COMED_Cv5_solicit.jpg

SwedishHeat
09-18-2012, 07:55 AM
Why does Moloch need a prequel series?

I was under the impression he was a fairly minor character.

IrishJedi
09-18-2012, 08:22 AM
Why does Moloch need a prequel series?

I was under the impression he was a fairly minor character.

I think this transpired after Joe Kubert died. He was inking the Nite Owl series (also written by JMS). He passed before finishing issues 3 and 4 so they fell a month or so behind. Moloch is now a 2-issue series to fill in those release slots while Bill Sienkiewicz steps in and inks Nite Owl 3 & 4.

IrishJedi
09-20-2012, 07:30 AM
Hurm. Nite Owl #3 was actually pretty good. Weird.

batfan08
10-14-2012, 03:05 PM
The series is getting better; the one that's most consistently delivered being Ozymandius, in my opinion. Going back a little bit, though, I want to once again address the Edward Blake/JFK conundrum. I already admitted that I was wrong, but, Jesus, the "Before Watchmen" continuities can't even keep it straight. So, Azzarrello's Comedian book says that Blake and Kennedy were friends, and that Blake was shocked by his death, but JMS's Dr.Manhattan says that one of the quantum possibilities is that JFK was assassinated by Blake (that book is all over the place, man; I have no clue)? :huh

Sweet Rabbit
10-14-2012, 03:52 PM
Why does Moloch need a prequel series?

I was under the impression he was a fairly minor character.

he's kind of a linchpin in the watchmen story

IrishJedi
10-16-2012, 10:20 PM
The series is getting better; the one that's most consistently delivered being Ozymandius, in my opinion. Going back a little bit, though, I want to once again address the Edward Blake/JFK conundrum. I already admitted that I was wrong, but, Jesus, the "Before Watchmen" continuities can't even keep it straight. So, Azzarrello's Comedian book says that Blake and Kennedy were friends, and that Blake was shocked by his death, but JMS's Dr.Manhattan says that one of the quantum possibilities is that JFK was assassinated by Blake (that book is all over the place, man; I have no clue)? :huh

That's because they don't, either. They don't care. This was clearly just a paycheck for the writers and editors.

batfan08
11-06-2012, 06:18 PM
Amazing variant for Minute Men #5; they really need to make prints of this ****:

http://i1176.photobucket.com/albums/x329/batfan08/963E6B78-D6AF-49C6-B663-EA6E7965C0D6-1509-0000011D0C3858B2.jpg

http://www.comicbookresources.com/?page=article&id=42049

batfan08
12-18-2012, 08:24 PM
So, did Taxi Driver take place in the world of Watchmen, or is this just an incredibly awesome nod?

http://i1176.photobucket.com/albums/x329/batfan08/D755C9EC-2712-46B4-908E-FD9C224CC850-318-00000014DD5630BD.jpg

batfan08
03-05-2013, 08:52 PM
Has anyone else been reading this? There were some things I didn't like; for example, some of the books contradicted others, but, overall, I really liked it, and I think they succeeded in adding to the Watchmen mythos. Dollar Bill, for example, was a character who was nothing more than a set piece in the original book; a cautionary tale, if you will, but Before Watchmen made him more than that. By fleshing out his character, his death has an impact.