Watchmen Through Gritted Teeth
I thought I’d try something a little different. DC Comics announced ‘Before the Watchmen’ – prequels of the immensely popular, landmark and FINITE Watchmen maxi series (that’s 12 issues long for the uninitiated).
As soon as I heard the idea, I shifted into the “that sounds like a really stupid idea” mode. Then I remembered that within recent memory, DC had brought back the Red Hood and the previously deceased Jason Todd. I thought I’d hate that too.
Marvel had a similar situation. Lately, when I hear about something that Marvel is doing and I think I’ll hate it, I usually despise it entirely. However, in Captain America, they brought back the previously deceased Bucky Barnes. I assumed that I’d hate it, and then I read it, and I really liked it.
Of course, this is really a credit to the writers (Judd Winick and Ed Brubaker) who knew that these ideas would be met with initial fan disapproval and negativity. What can I say? Ardent fans are like that. But if the stories were good, and told right, the fans might buy in. And that’s exactly what happened. I liked both storylines. A lot. Despite my initial reluctance.
So, with that in mind, I am going to try approaching these Watchmen prequels with an open mind. Even though I am reasonably certain I’ll hate them.
Let’s start with the creative teams, which are being used as a grand selling point. “How can they go wrong with talent like this?” fan after fan will say. Just remember that thought when the dust settles.
- Rorschach – Brian Azzarello and Lee Bermejo
- Ozymandius – Len Wein and Jae Lee
- Nite Owl – J. Michael Straczynski, Andy Kubert, Joe Kubert
- Minutemen – Darwyn Cooke
- Dr. Manhattan – J. Michael Straczynski and Adam Hughes
- Comedian – Brian Azzarello and J.G. Jones
- Silk Spectre – Darwyn Cooke and Amanda Conner
- Crimson Corsair – Len Wein and John Higgins
Where do I start? Okay, two titles by each writer. An interesting, talented, if not overwhelming, lineup of artists.
Brian Azzarello has done some interesting comics in the past (Batman: Broken City, Batman/Deathblow), but he’s not a writer whose work I’ve really been wowed by overall. Maybe I just missed the boat on him, he seems to be quite popular. I have to point out that I have a lack of faith in Azzarello after he spent four pages in the ‘Joker’ graphic novel (art by Bermejo) having the Joker refer to the Penguin as Abner. His name is Oswald. I’m sure that folks would be happy to point out that the Joker is insane and it was in character for him to make that mistake. I don’t subscribe to that, though. The Joker and the Penguin have been established to have at least a working knowledge of one another. And the Joker is often portrayed as quite lucid when the situation warrants. I think he’d remember the Penguin’s real name.
Len Wein is most notable to me as the 70s writer of Amazing Spider-Man and the 80s writer of Batman. There were some pretty good issues in those runs, but there wasn’t anything revolutionary going on. He’s been a solid writer, but not the kind of name that would make me want to run to the comic shop and pick up his latest work. This hasn’t changed even with this Watchmen money grab.
I’ve detailed in the past my general disinterest (bordering on active dislike) of Straczynski’s work. I’m sure he’s a very talented writer – just not my cup of Diet Coke. For me, if Adam Hughes was writing and drawing Dr. Manhattan (as he did with the Gen13: Ordinary Heroes miniseries), I’d be much more interested.
Darwyn Cooke is a really interesting creator, and to me – the one who most makes it tempting to acquire any of these issues. He did some great work on the Ed Brubaker-written “Catwoman” series, and his “DC: The New Frontier” was also very good. I can’t help but feel that I’d rather see him utilizing his skills elsewhere.
No really brilliant or interesting thoughts on any of the artists. They’re all pretty good (Adam Hughes and Joe Kubert are great), and all of them have produced comics that I’ve really enjoyed. If there is any true selling point (to me) here, it’s the artists. And that’s saying something, because the artists are almost never the selling point for me.
Missing from all of this are the truly big names I’d hoped I’d see. Of course, I knew that Alan Moore and Dave Gibbons would be absent entirely. I’m sure that Moore has already started using his Dan DiDio voodoo doll (I wonder if the others that are probably already in use would cancel out the effects?).
No Grant Morrison. Or Paul Jenkins. Or Judd Winick. No Greg Rucka, Geoff Johns, Kurt Busiek or Mark Waid. Or James Robinson. No Keith Giffen. It sure sounds like the upper tier writers were either busy doing other things, or that they politely declined to participate in this project. Perhaps some of them declined because they felt like they’d be stabbing a fellow writer in the back. Who knows?
I wanted to be open minded, and I’m still wrestling with that. Watchmen was a finite series. It had a beginning, a middle and an end. I don’t feel compelled to see any future stories about these characters nor do I feel a need to see any before stories. Sometimes, a work is good enough all on it’s own. I truly feel that Watchmen is just such a work. In my mind, nothing underscores this more solidly than the “Dark Knight” sequel.
That said, I’ll probably read a few of these issues (and try to be objective), but I still don’t think that I’ll change my initial thinking about them. I think it’s a shame that DC is doing this. I really believe that they are doing this solely to generate fan interest in the characters and to provide a foundation for a follow up to the Watchmen movie. Which was a decent movie, but again, not something that I think really requires any follow up movies (or TV shows).
Others have said that DC doing this will not diminish the original work. Perhaps that’s true – but it will be hard to forget about these new stories when a conversation about Watchmen comes up. I truly hope they surprise me and produce some great works.
Thoughts on the Watchmen Movie
Hrrm…I am mixed on Watchmen the movie. It was good, and I think I might have liked it if it wasn’t based on the legendary 1986 comic book.
While the comic book laid out clues and offered an opportunity to figure a few things out as you read along, director Zach Snyder spent far too much time filling in blanks. There wasn’t much for the viewer to think about, because most things were explained in fairly short order. Too much exposition. And too much stop action – just let the thing roll….we’re trained to watch fight scenes – just let ’em go.
Too much time spent on seemingly mundane details. Like how the blood got on the pin. We didn’t need a stop action there. It would have been fine to show us that bit when Rorschach picked up the button on the street. Preferable, in fact, as I felt like he was hitting us in the face with it. He didn’t need to stress that this was an interesting element. It was interesting, but not really THAT important.
There were some good things about the movie, but there were also a lot of things I’d rather have seen done differently. I think that being so driven to follow the comic book became a detraction after a while. There wasn’t much room left for originality. I also think that, while the Rorschach prison scenes were cool – they should have been cut…or cut down.
And I also thought it was a good contrast in the comic book, that when Rorschach was first given the Rorschach tests, he lied and said what the doctor wanted to hear. Then, after some negative encounters in the prison, he was given the tests again – and then he told what he was really seeing. Which was rather unpleasant, but it did give insight into the character and also helped to subtly move the story into it’s next phase.
Back to the movie – I thought the scene where he killed the guy with the cleaver was way over the top. Actually, I thought all of the violent scenes were a bit much. There was very little left to the imagination. We could have filled in those blanks. It’s like a TV sitcom’s laughtrack – why not give us a little and let us figure the details out ourselves? And was it me, or were there many times with Dr. Manhattan when you couldn’t get away from the fact that you were looking at a green screen?
I think it would have been better (or rather, I’d have preferred) to have had a scene where unknown persons (or even Ozymandius to… Bubastis , who knows?) were talking at the beginning of the movie about each of the characters. A kind of “In order to know how I saved the world, you must first understand how I developed the plan…” This would have saved us from the ‘background’ scenes of each character.
Speaking of Ozymandius, I thought he was painful. His speech patterns and pronounciations were maddening. I found it hard to believe that this guy had the plan to save the world. He was the least unconvincing would-be world conquerer that I’ve seen in quite some time.
I know there was a desire to give everybody what they wanted, but after about 2 hours, I was kinda like…”ok, let’s wrap this up…” The critical elements that made the comic book so compelling seemed to have been neutralized in the movie. I think that there are some things that work well in comic books that fall flat in movies.
The voiceovers in the Sin City movie are a perfect example of this. It’s a known and innovative storytelling device in comics, but it really sounds odd and ineffective in movies. This can work in movies, but it needs to done just right. In Watchmen, it was supposed to take center stage and it just didn’t seem ready for the big time.
Graphic Novel or Comic Book?
OK – so maybe it’s just me. It usually is. But it’s a big pet peeve of mine to see people writing about comic books and refusing to refer to them as such. It happens a lot in newspapers.
Amazingly, there are some papers that have recurring “comic of the week” type articles. A lot different from the 80s & 90s where it was a rare occurance indeed to see any articles about comics.
Now, they’re a bit more prominent. And a lot of them will go to great lengths to tell you the difference between a graphic novel and a comic book. Or they’ll simply make the distinction with no reality-based qualifier.
For example, this from the October 26th newspaper “The Independent” : “If it wasn”t for Watchmen, I would have missed out on other great graphic novel writers like Garth Ennis, Ed Brubaker and Frank Miller.”
Look, I think it’s nice that people will condescend to consider comics a viable topic for a newspaper article….but please – Last I checked, Ennis, Brubaker and Miller are all comic book writers – not “graphic novel writers”…whatever that means.
Even Sony Pictures is doing it – a promo site for “30 Days Of Night” says “Based on the Graphic Novel.” Well, it’s sort of accurate – but the graphic novel is “based on” the comic book mini-series that it reprints.
So let’s see – what is the difference between a comic book and a graphic novel?
Here’s the New York Sun attempting to clarify: “It’s been decades since comic books outgrew the simple dichotomy of good and evil forces facing off in a superpowerful universe, but it’s taken many of us a while to realize it. In recent years, the scope of the graphic novel has grown to cover subjects ranging from the holocaust to epilepsy and rape. On Friday, the closing night feature at the 45th New York Film Festival proves how far so-called “comic books” have traveled.”
Note the use of “comic books” in the first sentence in a fairly condescending tone. Then in comes “graphic novel” in the second sentence, letting all readers know that you are not brain dead if you read pages that have words & pictures together.
They cover subjects ranging from “the holocaust to epilepsy and rape” ??? Oh wow! You mean that they are a legitimate form of entertainment? Why is this part of the sentence necessary? Why is it a shock that comic books (sorry, graphic novels) would contain themes and ideas that might cause a person to think?
Oh, it’s because “the 45th New York Film Festival proves how far so-called “comic books” have traveled.”
Note how “comic books” is in quotes. That’s how it was in the article (it was published on October 11th if you want to look it up). In quotes. As though this is a euphemism for something. You know, “comic books” – insert air quotes here.
Here’s more from the article: But Chris Staros, a publisher at Top Shelf Productions, said the medium wasn’t ready to capitalize on the interest at that point. “Back in 1986 when ‘Watchmen’ and ‘The Dark Night Returns’ and ‘Maus’ came out, comic books got a lot of notoriety,” Mr. Staros said. “But there wasn’t the fuel to add to the fire at that point.” Today, he said, “I don’t have to explain what a graphic novel is anymore.”
Apparently you do, because Watchmen and Dark Knight were both printed as comic books and collected into a reprint volume. They are comic books, not graphic novels.
I suppose if I were to actually legitimize this idiotic attempt to differentiate between the two things, I’d say that a graphic novel is an original piece of work that was not originally published in serialized comic book installments.
Arkham Asylum would be an example. As would Elektra Lives. Despite what Sony Picutres thinks, 30 Days of Night is not a graphic novel. You’ve probably already figured out that Watchmen and Dark Knight are not graphic novels either. They are, simply, great comic books.
But then, so are a lot of “graphic novels.”
Andy Blank
Mike Frangione
Depends on What the Meaning of the Word 'Blog' is 
Aaargh-o! Affleck as Batman
I admit it. I was a little surprised (I’d stop short of saying upset or angry, but only just barely) to have heard who was going to be the next Batman. It is a kind of out-of-left-field choice. But I decided to take a step back and look at this whole thing from a distance. See if I could make any sense of it. That hasn’t really happened, but I’ve had about a month to read what other people thought and to see all the clever memes pertaining to this. It seems that a lot of folks are not sold on Ben Affleck as Batman.
Okay, so Mr. Affleck as the Dark Knight wasn’t what most folks had in mind. It could be worse – it could be George Clooney, Val Kilmer, Nicholas Cage or Hayden Christensen. And is this really the worst aspect of this whole thing? Not to me.
If you’re going to reboot a franchise (and I’m assuming that is the plan once the Batman/Superman … thing … comes and goes) so quickly after the initial set of movies was produced, then you might as well get some big names in the mix. It might be a good thing to be able to say “Academy Award winner” Ben Affleck in the promos.
After all, the Superman/Batman movie is being masterminded by Zack Snyder, who brought us the interesting but tepid Man of Steel and the interestinger but tepider Watchmen. In both movies, there were some elements that worked and were pretty cool, but as an overall production, I thought both fell short. Of course, both were attempting to do lofty things – translating what it was that made Watchmen and Superman such big time entities in the first place was going to be a daunting challenge no matter who was doing it.
I am sure that I am in the minority in being underwhelmed (OK, maybe I was whelmed) by Man of Steel. But I can’t get it out of my head that this Snyder guy – not Joss Whedon (Buffy, Avengers), not Jon Favreau (Iron Man and Iron Man 2), not Christopher Nolan (Dark Knight trilogy), not Matthew Vaughn (Kick-Ass, X-Men: First Class) – is handing such a crucial piece of the DC Universe.
Batman/Superman is one of the keystone movies that will be setting the stage for the long awaited Justice League movie. And after The Avengers, there’s a huge bar set for the whole team concept. Add to this the fact (well, it’s a fact to me) that Marvel’s lead-in movies (Iron Man, Thor, Iron Man 2, Captain America) were all excellent movies in their own right.
I don’t see this being the case with DC. They had a miss with Green Lantern, and The Dark Knight movies will be a distant memory by the time they get to greenlight Justice League (2017). Mix in the stupid inability to get a Wonder Woman movie concept generated or approved, and things are not looking so good. She’s a pretty major player in the team’s history and she can’t even get screen time (not since the 70’s, anyway). Even the Flash had a TV show in recent memory (1990’s) and even has a show coming soon (2016), based on the strength of Arrow.
Of course, the strength of Arrow is that it truly is a very good TV show, and lays a solid groundwork for one of the other main players in Justice League lore. If I had any complaints, it’s that I’d like to see more costumed adversaries – or at least more characters from the Green Arrow universe. But this is a small complaint – if you’re not watching the show, you should be.
I’m trying to be open minded here – I’d like to see a good Batman/Superman movie. And a good Justice League movie. I just don’t think I will. Now – Ben Affleck as Batman. Yes, this does rile up the Batman fanbase, doesn’t it? I’m not jazzed up about the choice myself. There have been many many many names floated as alternates to the casting, but none of them are going to happen, so I will not even bother to comment on that. For my money, I thought John Goodman would have been a good fit for the role…
Yes, it’s true that Affleck was Daredevil. And it’s true that many folks felt that DD was a terrible movie, myself included. But then, this just proves that DC is not the only publisher of comic books that is capable of making less than spectacular super hero movies. And that film’s writer/director, Mark Steven Johnson, is nowhere to be found.
If Batman can survive Joel Schumacher, Ahnold and Christian Bale’s somewhat incomprehensible growl, he can survive Ben Affleck. How bad could it be? It can’t be worse than Batman Forever or Batman & Robin, right?