Watchmen 2. And 3. And 4. And spin-offs. And prequels about the Minutemen. I'm just DYING to find out what happens next! (That is sarcasm dripping with bile.)
Look, I get it. DC loves money. They want money. Watchmen earned them a lot of money over the last 2 decades. They want more money. I understand it's a business. This still feels wrong. Like those Kingdom Come sequels that weren't a fraction the quality of the Waid and Ross miniseries, but on a scale much, much worse. Why, the Dark Knight Returns sequel had the same creator and it was horrible.
Watchmen earned a certain degree of integrity over the last two decades because of its inarguable quality. That reputation will be prostituted by DC to make more money.
I don't doubt more Watchmen will be profitable. Why, some of it could even be good depending on the creative teams. But this is a blatant cash-grab. The only appropriate response is not to buy any of this garbage.
JSA's Kingdom Come sequel wasn't terrible and actually had some good moments that were left out of the original. However, it never matched the original. The same could be said about this project as well. I will admit, I am curious to see what the future would be like with Ozymandis in control, but the open ending is what made Watchmen awesome. I wouldn't mind a prequel since they barely scratched the surface of the Minute Men. Its good Moore and Gibbons get first look at the drafts, but if Moore isn't going to write it, I'll pass. DK2 was more about the JLA then Batman, plus Dick Grayson being an immortal Joker impostor was retarded.
I don't really get the outrage for stuff like this. A lousy movie sequel isn't going to make the original comic any less good. If for you it will somehow ruin Watchmen, then just don't watch the movies. That could also have the benefit of driving down ticket/DVD sales so maybe Warner Brothers wouldn't be interested in making even more Watchmen movies.
But if you're a comics writer or artist and you're not working on a creator-owned property, you should expect those characters to be messed with when you're done with them, no matter what the media.
Honestly, if I stopped reading stuff just because the original creator was no longer involved, I would have missed out on a ton of cool stories. Granted, I would have missed out on some crap, too, but the good outweighs the bad.
Plus, they've been making movies and tv shows based on comics as long as comics have been around, no matter how the creators may have felt about it. Not to mention all the licensing of comic characters for basically any product imaginable.
Basically as a life long comic fan, I feel whether you're a fan or someone that works in the industry, this sort of thing is just a fact of life and getting mad about it is just wasted energy.
Hate Dan DiDio and Joe Quesada all you want but it won't change the fact that they're responsible for running a business that is supposed to turn a profit. Respecting legacies and creator's wishes are all well and good but if it doesn't turn a profit then Dan and Joe aren't doing their jobs properly.
Edit: I wanted to clarify that I don't really think a Watchman sequel is a good idea because I don't think there's much of a story after the first one finishes. At least, not a direct continuation of the first story. I also don't think that Dan & Joe always make the right (or even good) decisions but even if I don't happen to like the decisions at least I can understand (usually) why they were made. I just can't seem to be outraged at a comic book company doing what comic book companies have been doing for decades. And if you don't think that Marvel or DC has been doing anything possible to make a quick buck off their properties since day one then you're fooling yourself.
Presumably the idea here is to get the interest of those who saw the film but didn't read the comic before. Will a sequel adhere to the giant squid or to Dr. Manhattan as a nuclear threat?
If they stick with the squid, I can see the film-first, comics-newbie fans being all "WTF is this crap!?" The squid requires a lot of setup to make sense, none of which was in the film. The endings are not plug-and-play. But, if they stick with the film ending, many comics fans (the majority of the market for this) will be angry and possibly not by the book.
But, I'd read prequels, depending on who writes them. A Rorschach/Nite Owl title with a pulpy style would be fun to read. Especially if it were a series of one-shots. Giving Dr. Manhattan to Grant Morrison to do some of his weirdass existential nonsense would certainly appeal to his many fans. Garth Ennis could do a badass Comedian in Vietnam book.
Lloyd: When I met Mary, I got that old fashioned romantic feeling, where I'd do anything to bone her. Harry: That's a special feeling.
Caliban makes a good point about how the comics industry works, but I think the amount of time that's passed already is what makes this a hard pill to swallow. Watchmen has been left alone for 20+ years. Furthermore, it's such a mid-80's period piece that I'm not even sure how you'd make a project like this work. Short of running the sequel in modern times, which would basically eliminate a direct sequel (what, we're going to follow these guys around now that they're all in their 60's?) it seems like a creatively pointless enterprise.
Originally posted by CalibanI don't really get the outrage for stuff like this.
Coming soon: Citizen Kane 2!
Sometimes when a narrative is done, it's done. I'm not outraged, just disappointed I guess. Even if Alan Moore approves the script and takes a glamour shot with the new team, his thumbs up and smile wide, I'd probably disagree with the idea. If that happened at least I'd give it a chance. But it won't, so I won't.
And I'm not seething, boycotting, or crying for Dan's head. Just disinterested, disappointed, and shaking mine because Watchmen (without hyperbole) is seminal.
The Catcher in the Rye sold a ton of books, would anyone be arguing against the masses railing against a part two to that?
I understand not wanting to read/watch something like this. But there's certainly a right for it to be -made-. If it's a really bad idea, odds are it will fail. Since I have no inherent stake in its success, no skin off my nose if it does. I don't think it devalues the predecessor. Watchmen will always be a great story, pretty much perfectly done. The movie didn't fully do it justice, but I enjoyed it in its own right. If they make ten sucky sequels, in comic book or movie form, that won't make what Alan Moore and Dave Gibbons did any less. It will only make the people who attempted to follow it up look stupid. And making a big fuss about it only encourages them, because then it has "controversy" and "buzz". The best way to discourage people making crappy things is to not give them your money as a reward for it.
"Never piss off a hawk with a blowgun" - Conan O'Brien
Someone tried to make Catch in the Rye sequel and Salinger sued the hell out of them. Gone with the Wind, Wizard of Oz and French Connection all had terrible or less then stellar sequels. I am not that outraged since its the trend of the times which is once something is popular no matter how it ended. If DC sees dollar signs they will do it.
Originally posted by lotjxSomeone tried to make Catch in the Rye sequel and Salinger sued the hell out of them. Gone with the Wind, Wizard of Oz and French Connection all had terrible or less then stellar sequels. I am not that outraged since its the trend of the times which is once something is popular no matter how it ended. If DC sees dollar signs they will do it.
The Wizard of Oz was actually quite successful in generating sequels. L. Frank Baum himself wrote 13 of them, and there's a new "official" sequel coming out next year.
I never understand why people get so up in arms about stuff like this. Nothing's going to change the original story, if Alan Moore has *any* kind of input it'll be better for it, and really haven't we all wanted to see more of the Minutemen?
"Tattoos are the mullets of the aughts." - Mike Naimark
Originally posted by lotjxI meant Return to OZ the movie. People know Wizard of OZ due to the movie and not the books. I am sure some ass will come on here and say the reverse, but those people are nerds.
Don't tell me that a 1970's rock opera version of the Wizard of Oz is not as awesome as it sounds.Click Here (en.wikipedia.org)
Also, Return to Oz was fantastic.
Open your mind a bit Lottie.
"Tattoos are the mullets of the aughts." - Mike Naimark
I heard that the Watchmen trade has been the top selling graphic novel each of the last 3 years. From a story that's 25 years old! From a business standpoint, it's a no brainer to do this. Now I don't want to see Watchmen vs Deathblow, but an anthology type thing would be ok, maybe telling stories from the early days? Brubaker on Rorschach? The previously mentioned Morrison on Dr. Manhattan? I can get behind that. Plus, no one creator has to take the fall if it fails.
After reading Marvel's recent adaptation of Oz, I started thinking a movie remake that was more faithful to the book would work. The movie and book are so different in so many ways. For starters, don't do a musical.
"I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ."
Originally posted by kentish After reading Marvel's recent adaptation of Oz, I started thinking a movie remake that was more faithful to the book would work. The movie and book are so different in so many ways. For starters, don't do a musical.
I swear this'll be my last post about Oz in this thread. The guy who made Zardoz (an amazing move that gets slept on by people who can only point and laugh at an image of Sean Connery in a red diaper) is doing a CG Wizard of Oz that comes out next year! It sounds like it's going to be much more faithful to the original book, and one can only hope the Tin Woodsman's fight with a giant spider is included.
ObZardoz: Think "Book of Eli, except instead of the Bible, it's
Spoiler Below: Highlight text to read
The Wizard of Oz. Get it? Zard...Oz?
(edited by Mike Zeidler on 5.2.10 1446) "Tattoos are the mullets of the aughts." - Mike Naimark
I am all for the return of the multiverse, but hope we get some clarification soon as to who exactly is on each Earth. The Marvels appear to have their own Earth, but they have been heavily involved with 52. Are they not the same Marvels?