Before Watchmen

[Alex Logan]

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 ......cheers!

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

 

[thenammagazine]

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.

 

[crows]

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

it is not the same, just saying,

 

[crows]

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]

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

it is not the same, just saying,

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.

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

 

[Alex Logan]

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.

 

[crows]

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

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]

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]

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.

https://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]

I guess differentiation only counts when it's written. If it's not in Time magazine, Virginia, it must not be so.

 

[Sweet Rabbit]

It's a graphic novel

 

[IrishJedi]

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]

Where does it implicitly state that The Comedian assassinated JFK in Watchmen? I don't seem to recall it...

 

[thenammagazine]

Wasn't he in Dallas the day JFK was shot using his "bodyguard" status for Nixon as a cover up?

 

[IrishJedi]

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]

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.

 

[IrishJedi]

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]

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]

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.

 

[batfan08]

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.