DC finally confirm Watchmen prequels (Updated with a pithy JMS comment)

[icon_uk]

From DC's blog "The Source"

This summer, DC Entertainment will publish all-new stories expanding on the acclaimed WATCHMEN universe. As highly anticipated as they are controversial, the seven inter-connected prequel mini-series will build on the foundation of the original WATCHMEN, the bestselling graphic novel of all time. BEFORE WATCHMEN will be the collective banner for all seven titles, from DC Comics.
“It’s our responsibility as publishers to find new ways to keep all of our characters relevant,” said DC Entertainment Co-Publishers Dan DiDio and Jim Lee. “After twenty five years, the Watchmen are classic characters whose time has come for new stories to be told. We sought out the best writers and artists in the industry to build on the complex mythology of the original.”

A few covers...






BEFORE WATCHMEN includes:

• RORSCHACH (4 issues) – Writer: Brian Azzarello. Artist: Lee Bermejo

• MINUTEMEN (6 issues) – Writer/Artist: Darwyn Cooke

• COMEDIAN (6 issues) – Writer: Brian Azzarello. Artist: J.G. Jones

• DR. MANHATTAN (4 issues) – Writer: J. Michael Straczynski. Artist: Adam Hughes

• NITE OWL (4 issues) – Writer: J. Michael Straczynski. Artists: Andy and Joe Kubert

• OZYMANDIAS (6 issues) – Writer: Len Wein. Artist: Jae Lee

• SILK SPECTRE (4 issues) – Writer: Darwyn Cooke. Artist: Amanda Conner

Each week, a new issue will be released, and will feature a two-page back-up story called CURSE OF THE CRIMSON CORSAIR, written by original series editor Len Wein and with art by original series colorist John Higgins. There will also be a single issue, BEFORE WATCHMEN: EPILOGUE, featuring the work of various writers and artists, and a CRIMSON CORSAIR story by Wein and Higgins.

“The original series of WATCHMEN is the complete story that Alan Moore and I wanted to tell. However, I appreciate DC’s reasons for this initiative and the wish of the artists and writers involved to pay tribute to our work. May these new additions have the success they desire,” said Dave Gibbons, WATCHMEN co-creator and original series artist.

However, for another POV, try The New York Times, which has a less flattering few comments from Alan Moore

Mr. Moore, who has disassociated himself from DC Comics and the industry at large, called the new venture “completely shameless.”

Speaking by telephone from his home in Northampton, England, Mr. Moore said, “I tend to take this latest development as a kind of eager confirmation that they are still apparently dependent on ideas that I had 25 years ago.

So your thoughts? Have to say, they ARE bringing some a-listers to this, all people who COULD have said "No".




This from Newsarama

J. Michael Straczynski, who's writing Nite Owl and Dr. Manhattan mini-series as part of the line, told the Hollywood Reporter that "The first time all of us got together in New York to solidify the storyline, we each had copies of Watchmen in hand and whenever a question was raised about what happened to whom and when, we’d flip through looking for the slightest clue. I joked at the time that it looked a lot like Saturday afternoon Bible Study."

Most Bible Study groups don't gather to write a Bible prequel, however. But Straczynski also calls the argument that the Watchmen characters should remain sealed in the original series forever and never be touched again, "absolutely understandable and deeply flawed":

"Leaving aside the fact that the Watchmen characters were variations on pre-existing characters created for the Charleton Comics universe, Straczynski continued, “it should be pointed out that Alan has spent most of the last decade writing very good stories about characters created by other writers, including Alice (from Alice in Wonderland), Dorothy (from Wizard of Oz), Wendy (from Peter Pan), as well as Captain Nemo, the Invisible Man, Jekyll and Hyde, and Professor Moriarty (used in the successful League of Extraordinary Gentlemen). I think one loses a little of the moral high ground to say, ‘I can write characters created by Jules Verne, H.G. Wells, Robert Louis Stevenson, Arthur Conan Doyle and Frank Baum, but it’s wrong for anyone else to write my characters.’”

Does he have a point?

Comments

[filthysize]

Some more covers. The Silk Spectre one looks gorgeous, actually. Siiiigh.

[mrstatham]

The Conner one does look beautiful, and it's the one I'm the most interested in. At the same time, the Adam Hughes one for Doctor Manhattan looks... Kinda creepy. And the Comedian one is utterly, utterly offputting.

So.. Yeah. Conner on Silk Spectre is a great choice. And I can't imagine anyone better than Cooke to do the early days of the Watchmen Universe by doing the Minutemen story. So I'm at least interested in two of the books.

[pyrrhocorax]

THEY'RE NOT "THE WATCHMEN"

I WILL CONTINUE TO REPEAT THIS INFORMATION UNTIL DC READS THE ACTUAL COMIC

[aeka]

Yeah this isn't really news at this point since, as you said, most people already knew about this. At this point this was nothing short of the other shoe dropping. Still awesome though; more books to pick up. I'm especially interested in the Minutemen and Silk Spectre books since I always found their histories interesting. :)

[darkknightjrk]

The Silk Spectre one is especially cool to see--not just because of the gorgeous Conner art, but because that was a character that, as the years went by, I started to feel was really lacking, and, like Cooke said in the interview for it, she was just the girlfriend. It'll be cool to see her have her own story, even if we know that her future is rather bittersweet...

[darkknightjrk]

Well, with that kinda talent pool, I have to give it a shot.

As for Moore's comments...it really rings hallow when you consider that pretty much every character he's been praised for writing is either a pastiche or from public domain. The idea doesn't mean jack-all at the end of the day--it's the execution of the story.

[icon_uk]

.it really rings hallow when you consider that pretty much every character he's been praised for writing is either a pastiche or from public domain.

It never did Walt Disney any harm...

[samjohnsoncomics]

Some terrific artists attached.

[filthysize]

The Azzarello quote from the Times article is kind of hilarious.

Brian Azzarello, a comics author who is writing the mini-series for the Watchmen characters Rorschach and the Comedian, said he expected an initial wave of resistance because “a lot of comic readers don’t like new things.”

[venatosapiens]

The really funny thing is that he's right. He's also deploying that argument in precisely the wrong place at precisely the wrong time.

[tpsreports]

“It’s our responsibility as publishers to find new ways to keep all of our characters relevant,”

I think they meant to say

"It's our hope to make a ton of money without having to actually create any new and compelling characters."

[kksimone]

...how do you have a "before" for a narrative that spans ~45 years and isn't told in chronological order? With the cover image/first panel thing, the Comedian's dead before you even open the first issue--every time you see him is technically before Watchmen.

[cypherfdp]

Uhhh. The covers are nice, I guess?

[bazor]

Is it just my fuzzy memory or is that the movie Nite Owl costume and not the comic one?

[cyberghostface]

Hard to tell with the lighting, but for comparison:








The goggles look like the original design at least.

[pallas_athena]

I was a lot more enthused about Silk Spectre when I thought it was just going to be a Sally Jupiter book. Seriously, I want Sally Jupiter to star in a fun, retro book full of silliness and biting commentary on Golden Age sexism and Dorothy Parker-esque humour. I want her to get a chance to be witty and kickass and have some goddamn fun for once in her life. If there have to be prequels to Watchmen, that's the one I want.

[leikomgwtfbbq]

Now that--that would be a book I'd read.

But the way it's presented now?

Yeah, no.

[cyberghostface]

Only thing that I'm really interested in is the relationship between the Comedian and original Silk Spectre given that they had some sort of consensual relationship with lingering feelings on both sides. I wonder how it could get to the point that it did given what he did to her.

Besides that, there's not a lot of backstory that I really think needs to be told that hasn't been told already.

[fifthie]

I wonder how it could get to the point that it did given what he did to her.

Probably not by any particularly exotic or hidden mechanism, at least going by the tiny half-remembered bit of stuff I've read about women falling into relationships with men who raped them, or being raped by men they already had feelings for, or generally people ending up attached to / caring about people who've done terrible things to them or to whom they've done terrible things.

Which isn't to say it couldn't be a good story, if done well.

... Like if... Greg Rucka were attached to that book then, yeah, I bet that could manage to be not a total shitfest.

Azzarello though, man. Thaaaaaaaaaaaaaaat's gonna be a party.

[his_spiffynesss]

The Minutemen story does interest me, as well as Silk Specter. I might give the two books Strazynski is writing a try.

[shanejayell]

I'd wait until trades. That way you're not left dangling like the Twelve, Superman Grounded etc etc.

[fifthie]

I literally can't stop laughing

It's like... the ultimate punchline

[fifthie]

I just can't begin to tell you how upset I am by Curly's decision to poke himself in the eyes AND THEN bop himself on the head

[fifthie]

Azzarello is p. much the perfect choice for the job of turning Rorschach into the character that Rorschach was meant as a deconstruction of.

[drexer]

Watch then how I move slowly my hand upwards, and as my face moves towards its awaiting palm to fit there in such a way so as to provide support and demonstration of incredulity upon this stupidity.

Except that already happened 35 minutes ago.

[fifthie]

Stealing this, using it everywhere

[drexer]

What annoys me especially here is how hard it is for them to understand that people(and Moore) aren't against this because it's Watchmen and not other title like Swamp Thing, but because Watchmen was written as a story contained by beginnings and endings, and this is an antithesis to it.

It's more of the same there-must-always-be-a-continuity crap that isn't helping at all getting comics out there to the masses.

For instance:

"As one example: it's always bothered me that someone as brilliant and precise about time as Jon could just blithely walk into the intrinsic field test chamber as the time-lock closed. He'd know better than that. But since it did happen, you now have to say, "Okay, that being the case, how did it happen? Is there something we don't know? Or more to the point, was there something he didn't know?" - J. Michael Straczynski

How can anyone ask this question while not noticing how creating a backstory for that event will utterly differentiate it from the traditional superhero origin that forms the basis of Watchmen?

It will be all the clusterfuck like giving Peter Parker's parents secret agent backstory all over again. Except worse. Because it will be like making Uncle Ben a ninja.

[fifthie]

"As one example: it's always bothered me that someone as brilliant and precise about time as Jon could just blithely walk into the intrinsic field test chamber as the time-lock closed. He'd know better than that. But since it did happen, you now have to say, "Okay, that being the case, how did it happen? Is there something we don't know? Or more to the point, was there something he didn't know?" - J. Michael Straczynski

Oh man you guys

I just can't wait to read Joe's totally awesome Doctor Manhattan fixfic

[okkult3000]

The accumulated filth of all their reboots and renumberings will foam up about their waists and all the writers and editors will look up and shout "Buy DC Comics!"... and I'll whisper "no."

On the other hand, Darwyn Cooke.

[his_spiffynesss]

I'm hard pressed to say whether this or drexer's "35 minutes ago" comment is the most perfect response.

[his_spiffynesss]

But do we get more giant blue penises? Isn't that the most important question?

[darkknightjrk]

Via Adam Hughes' blog:

"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..."

[halloweenjack]

[I left this as a comment on this issue on another site. Apologies in advance if you're offended by my comments about mainstream superhero readers in the second paragraph; I'm not necessarily talking about you.]

I think that Moore's objections to projects like this--and, in a way, the objections that fans, pros and others have in response to Alan's statements--are based on his belief that not only has he already done everything that should be done with those characters and situations, but that he's done exactly what should be done with those characters and situations. He's famous in comics circles--if not infamous or notorious--for his extremely detailed scripts that leave almost no details, no matter how minor, to chance. The "Marvel Method" for creating comics, in which Stan Lee would give Jack Kirby or Steve Ditko a bare plot outline, the artist would do the storytelling heavy lifting, and Lee would slap some word balloons on top of the pencils, has no room in Moore's workflow. If he thinks that a story warrants twelve chapters of incredibly dense, symmetrical complexity, then that's just what's required, and if he thinks that it doesn't require more than eight pages in the back of Green Lantern, then that's what it gets; so, when he finds out that DC wants to take those Green Lantern Corps vignettes and turn them into an epic megacrossover (as they've already done) or tease out a few characters or concepts from a graphic novel which is not only as tightly written as any in history but may be as tightly written as it's possible to write one, he sincerely believes that they're awful ideas.

And, I believe, he's probably right. Oh, sure, the Green Lantern epic was popular among mainstream superhero comics fans, but that's an ever-shrinking group; don't try holding your breath until Geoff Johns is taken seriously by literary, non-comics-site critics. And it's difficult to see how anything would be added to the Watchmen characters by doing stand-alone stories outside of the structure of the graphic novel. I want to emphasize that it's not impossible for someone else--particularly one of the good, established writers or artists announced as part of this project--to do so; it's just really, really unlikely. After all, no one was really dying to do a story with a third-string superhero that was heavily derivative of Captain Marvel (and was created solely because Captain Marvel's owners lost a lawsuit brought on the basis that he was too derivative, in turn, of Superman), or a largely-uninspired British Captain America knockoff, or an imitation Man-Thing (who was in turn derived from The Heap), or for that matter a group of bog-standard superhero tropes from an all-but-forgotten defunct comics publisher that didn't have much going for them except that Steve Ditko drew some of them. Moore managed it, while the rest of the company was starting the first of several efforts to revitalize its decades-old legacy characters by furiously rearranging the deck chairs, because he was able to look beyond the obvious in a way that most of the rest of the company didn't seem able to do.

Moore has said before that he thinks that there are any number of characters that have at least a few unplumbed depths that have yet to be explored, but no one's really trying to do that (well, a few people have with DC's "New 52" company-wide reboot, but quite a few of the titles are already getting the axe just a few months into the experiment); they're trying to squeeze a few more bucks out of the graphic novel that's been in print for a quarter-century or so. I don't begrudge any of the creators involved doing work for hire, any more than I begrudged Moore doing so (and, in fact, his reworking of the Rob Liefeld Superman knockoff, Supreme, remains my favorite version of Superman since Crisis on Infinite Earths, save for Morrison and Quitely's All-Star Superman), but if I do get any of these books (and I probably will--it's hard to turn down new Cooke or Conner work), it's in spite of the subject, not because of it.

[shanejayell]

Right on!

Plus, you know... what is the POINT of all this? Other than making DC some dough.

[citygod]

Interesting that most of the comments on this subject are on the "sealed box" point (Moore wrote a complete story, no-one else should expand on it.) Isn't the bigger point that Moore was - let's just say it - swindled by DC on the original deal and this is just another exploitation of that bad faith? They agreed that the rights to the characters would revert to him and Gibbons when the first collection went out of print (it sold better than expected, so DC kept it in print forever) and that they'd only do a sequel/spin-off/prequel if he agreed to it (he hasn't and they're ignoring him).
Moore can be a pain (and slightly hypocritical) but isn't this more about creators rights? Isn't this a political issue, more than an artistic one? Honestly, how can any of the prequel creators ever complain about being exploited (or, for example, berate Marvel about the treatment of Kirby and Ditko) if they agree to do this?

[icon_uk]

Don't know about the no prequel/sequel rule, but I don't see DC's "We keep the characters as long as it's in print" as a swindle, it was there in the mutually agreed contract that his lawyers, presumably, checked it out and approved.

He was entitled to a share in the profits from the movie versions of his work and he chose to turn it down, having his share be spread amongst the other creators. He has said that he still thinks it was the right move artistically, but admits that had he known how much was involved in total for From Hell, League of Extraordinary Gentlemen, V for Vendetta AND Constantine, he might have found it a much harder choice to make.

[leikomgwtfbbq]

Didn't we already have a prequel already BUILT INTO the story? You know, with all the flashbacks and supplemental material jam-packed into it? That's all we really needed to know about what happened before, I feel.

[drexer]

...

WAIT!

I just noticed this: Adam Hughes is drawing one title completely?

After he just said some time ago that he put All-Star Wonder Woman on hold because "with the current financial situation I make more money from covers, not interior work"?

Goddamn it.

[citygod]

Yeah, that bugs me too. They must be paying him a fortune to do this.

[stubbleupdate]

I'm not going to read these, or the original.

Don't massively care, to be fair.

[equinox216]

See, I rather enjoyed Watchmen. Partly that's because it was my first experience with anti-heroing, and partly because it got to me at the impressionable age of, er, 11 or so, but as I've read it again later, I have a better feel for its context. I wouldn't claim it's the end-all be-all of comics, but it's pretty solid overall, it's got some good characterization packed in pretty tightly for a graphic novel, and it's a big enough influence on so many other writers that I'd say it's worth taking a look at the source material. (I have the two Frank Miller Dark Knight books for that same reason.)

Additionally, as an American, I find Englandese writers like Ellis and Moore useful for a half-step-removed perspective on American issues that I wouldn't have necessarily thought of. I realize that's kind of moving in the opposite direction from you, though.

From what I've seen, Moore's objection is to DC farming out the stories for profit and profit, not 'people writing followups well'. Someone on ComicsAlliance quoted him as saying (summarily) 'Pirate them all you want; that's not what's bothering me here'.

Besides, if you don't read it, how will you ever truly appreciate the fantastic MAD Magazine parody? ;-s

[golden_orange]

From a purely artistic viewpoint at least, I kind of agree with the novelist in the NYT article who points out that on one hand it's a story that's done and dusted and revisiting it invites travesty, but on the other hand given how Moore so freely engages in referential and intertextual reinterpretations himself, his own work is practically begging to have the same done it in turn; turnabout is kind of fair play, after all, and Moore's work isn't set in concrete or immune from revisitation or reimagining any more than the works he himself revisited or reimagined are.