Monday, 3 September 2012

On "Before Watchmen: Minutemen" #3, Page 5


      
For a comic which has been almost universally hailed as a triumph of storytelling, if not ethicacy, Before Watchmen: Minutemen #3 seems to be a far prettier comic-book than it's a compelling and moving one. Though there's no denying that Darwyn Cooke is a skilled writer and artist with a great many laudable achievements to his name, his pages in Child's Play often seem as lacking in emotion, clarity and excitement as they're undoubtedly colourful and easy on the eye. Indeed, Cooke's work here often appears rushed and ill-judged where its very basics are concerned. For every successful expression of artistic ambition, there's more than a few pages of limp, time-wasting plot-grinding, where the beats of the story are hit without the sense that what's being shown is of any genuine importance at all. As such, there's frequently a flatness of tone here combined with a lack of urgency and feeling which leaves the whole enterprise seeming perfunctory and uninspired. The work may at first glance appear somewhat handsome, and there's more than a hint of radicalism about some of Cooke's page designs, but more often than not, what's on the page is far less moving and impressive than it initially appears.
  
    
To take but one example of how the charming and imprecise has won out over the kind of ferociously disciplined and purposeful approach adopted by Alan Moore and Dave Gibbons in the original Watchmen, the fifth page of Minutemen #3 - above - presents us with the moment in which The Comedian is expelled from the team for his attempted rape of the first Silk Spectre. A highly charged business, you might expect, and yet Cooke presents us with a sequence of panels which suggest that the confrontation carries little more force and conviction than would a mildly wined-up debate about settling a barely two-figure dinner bill.

    
Many of Cooke's choices on this page seem inexplicably inexact. In the fifth panel - above - he presents the reader with an attempt on Dollar Bill's part to defend The Comedian. Sally Jupiter was to blame for the whole sorry business because of the way in which she "presents herself", he contends, while Edward Blake is "only a kid". It's an utterly repellent argument, and as such, a particularly odd one to place into the mouth of a character who was described by Hollis in Watchmen as "one of the nicest and most straightforward men I have ever met".  And yet, having raised the issue, Cooke not only skims across and abandons it within the same panel, but does so in a manner which seems calculated to destroy any tension, let alone drama, in the incident. For though Larry Schexnayder's putdown of Dollar Bill undoubtedly reads as a forceful retort, Cooke's art presents the Silk Spectre's lover and manager only in extreme profile. As such, we can see nothing of either his expression or his body language as a whole. Of course, we must presume that Schexnayder's furious, but the work of imagining what that means has all been left up to the reader. Even the one sentence that's given to him lacks an exclamation mark. Instead, we're left with the sight of an uninforming, generic expression on Dollar Bill's face, a by-the-numbers version of a superheroic countenance which might have been used for any number of moderate emotional responses. In short, Cooke skates over matters of genuine promise and importance while short-circuiting the events that he does show on the page.

        
Having superficially adopted as his basic layout the nine panel grid used by Moore and Gibbons in Watchmen, Cooke seems to have forgotten to always ensure that there's enough space left in each relatively small frame to tell his story. Too often, the panels are over-loaded with text, which leaves Cooke struggling to turn events into anything more than a summary of what a more enticingly told tale might have involved. In the final frame of the side  - above -  The Comedian's been given a powerfully contemptuous rant, and yet Mr Cooke's left too little room to present events in a way that's particularly interesting. Adopting an high-angle point-of-view, as he often does in Child's Play, Cooke succeeds in showing how his cast physically relate to each other prior to a coming brawl, but he does so at the cost of any drama. These are effectively stick figures, and the decision to show each of them as largely powerless - as a high-angle shot inevitably will - drains events of the anxiety which Cooke appears to want to suggest. In retrospect, the reader can see that the Comedian is being shown physically challenging the others, with their relative lack of aggression and foresight being suggested by their passivity in the face of his anger. And yet, it's such an under-powered design that its immediate effect is one of torpor. For all the disdain that's being expressed in the word balloons, the panel itself is one which offers barely a hint of emotion or even movement at all.

        
Time and time again, Cooke offers us panels which barely serve the story he's telling. There's no denying that the art in these moments has a retro-appeal about it when considered in isolation from the issue's story.  And yet, what in panel six - above - transmits anything of Nite Owl's character or convictions beyond the text itself? What here suggests that this a serving policeman whose referring to a team-mate's attempt to rape a colleague? Similarly, what are we being told about the other Minutemen in the scene, or the silhoutted Comedian? This is a frame which, for all its obviously sincere intent, lacks intensity and precision. So too does the second panel, where the Comedian's attempts to justify his actions lack any emotional context because we're denied the sight of his face. Shadowed as he is, we can't tell if he's being sincere or manipulative. Even the unlikely, and quite frankly unbelievable, proposition that the Comedian would beg to stay in the Minutemen's ranks with the lines "This is all I have. Please don't thrown me out.", as we're shown in panel 3, is thrown away in a composition featuring characters who seem just as tired as they do resolute. Perhaps that's the point, and yet that would also appear to be the meaning of the first panel as well. To be wastefully repeating the same message when the Comedian's expression is missing from sight as he utters the least likely ten words he ever will is a remarkably careless abuse of space.

    
There's of course more than a suggestion that Cooke's trying to emphasise that the Minutemen are anything but a heroic band of men in these panels, as any understanding of Watchmen itself would of course insist. He places them low in these panels, hemming them in beneath dead space and accentuating the distance between their attention-seeking costumed images and their individual lack of quality. Yet the problem is that Cooke appears to have mistaken the presentation of a relatively unimpressive collection of would-be super-people with that of an uninteresting gaggle of people. To be something other than heroic is not to be lacking in interest, and yet here Cooke reduces just about everyone to bland bit-players. These are types, not people, and it's impossible to imagine them having a life away from Cooke's pages as anything other than stereotypes. The idiosyncrasies of everyone's character are reduced to a checklist of unconvincing qualities, until even The Comedian seems whittled down to, on the one hand, a by-the-numbers tough guy and, on the other, a whining little boy. The two aspects never convincingly coincide, but they do serve to numbly drive the plot forward in a way that allows Cooke to leap awkwardly from one aspect of Moore and Gibbon's story to another.

           
There's a depressing sense that the scene of The Comedian's expulsion in Before Watchmen: Minutemen is there simply because it has to be. It's part of the threadbare trail of backstory which Moore and Gibbons mentioned and yet never depicted, although they did portray with considerable passion and distaste The Comedian's attempted rape of Silk Spectre. By contrast, Cooke acknowledges the matter of the sexual assault as a trainspotter might note the number of a passing express that he's previously recorded. What the process lacks is a sense that it means anything other than another beat hit, another milestone passed, another clue from the original work put to use. And so, although the sexual politics of the Comedian's assault on Silk Spectre are certainly sketched out, and the moral repugnance of the whole business definitely referred to, the impression is that Cooke's far more interested in rushing on to the redundant second round of the punch-up between the Comedian and Hooded Justice. While time is taken on a scene which adds nothing to what was both seen and implied in Watchmen, the chance to portray Sally Jupiter's situation in the aftermath of The Comedians' attack on her is entirely skipped over. And while there may be a brief mention in Cooke's script that the Minutemen excluded both Silk Spectre and The Silhouette from their deliberations over the Comedian's fate, we see nothing of that particular discussion at all. Everything is skidded over in the rush to get to the limp superheroics of it all, and yet, even those oh-so-familiar fisti-cuffs are torn through as if Cooke had a pressing engagement elsewhere.

What could be less in the spirit of Watchmen than the use of an adapted nine-panel grid to tell a story that needs anything but?
.

20 comments:

  1. These absurd prequels should never have been made. They are diluting the original masterpiece that Watchmen was/is, and the only point these books serve is to fill in the blanks/spaces that really didnt need to be filled in in the original. Darwyn Cooke has his fans and detractors [ I was split on his Catwoman look, esp so soon after Jim Balents distinctive tenure ] and its clear the only reason hes here on this is to provide his 'nostalgic' art, a crass and inferior attempt by DC to make us think this is special.
    I cant say Im impressed with any of these issues at all...sometimes a one-off should precisely be just that, nothing more.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hello Karl:- I'm a huge fan of Darwyn Cooke's previous work, with a very special place reserved in my affections for Batman/The Spirit, New Frontier and Catwoman, all of which have lauded - for what little that's worth - here on TooBusy before. As such, I had expected that the storytelling in the Before Watchmen issues would be of a higher quality. Sadly, that's just not been so. A few pleasing panels, a few splendid sequences; beyond that, it's been thin stuff.

      What the Before Watchmen books have done is re-emphasise how brilliant the original Watchmen issues were. Familiarity, the passing of time and the debasing of the coinage with constant, er, "homaging", had blunted my ability to enjoy WM as I did when the comics were first issued. If nothing else, Before Watchmen has allowed me to go back, compare the new with the old and realise, once again, what a fantastic piece of work Watchmen is.

      Delete
  2. I don't think I've read much from Cooke, apart from a few things that were included in the X-Statix Omnibus. Looking at the page above doesn't give me a retro feeling at all, since good comics back in the fourites-sixties never looked that dull. They were usually very expressionistic. Full of deformed anatomy and powerful panels that just seemed to leap out at you. To me, it looks more like the output of someone who has found a way of cutting corners while disguising it as style.

    The idea that lack of drama is the new form of intensity and realism, is a new concept that seems to originate from people that believe that the laughably poor Lost in Translation, is a great piece of art. If you want to express understated drama or emotion - how about emulating Ken Loach or Takeshi Kitano, instead?

    I find it ironic that Before Watchmen has turned out exactly like the movie adaptation. I can't help but be amazed by how you can put such effort into mimicking a work you don't seem to understand. Well, at least it will keep DC away from bancrupcy for a while.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hello CJ:- You might enjoy Cooke's work on his adaptions of the Parker novels. His love of thrillers/noir very much comes across there, although I can imagine that someone not taken by Cooke's work itself might see it as an exercise in style over substance.

      I can only agree with you about the lack of vigour in a great deal of Cooke's work on Minutemen. In places it's there. There's a lovely shot of Nite Owl leaping from not-so-tall building to not-so-tall building, and there's ambition too; the last page is a nine panel depiction of a floor of a house and the quiet drama that's occurred there. But the ambition's in service of a flat, largely soulless story, and the energy, when it appears, works only as design for the same purpose.

      The problem is that there's no story here, but rather a sequence of events, and the motivation appears to something other than, shall we say, self-expression to such a degree that it's hard to work up the energy to read on.

      If any of BW is intended as a homage to WM, then every single person on the project has entirely missed the plot. I'm assuming that these folks know that they're not either honoring or matching the original. So why play with aspects such as the 9 panel grid which neither serve their own storytelling or show anything more than a facile respect to the original?

      Still, the more I read these comics, the more I respect the original. Over-familiar through re-reading and cultural ubiquity, the BW project has reminded me how fine a project is was and is.

      Delete
  3. It must be some seven, eight years since I read Watchmen, over a long, lazy Bank Holiday Weekend. I only read it once and havent gone back to it since [I must make up for that one day, I keep meaning to...]. Back in those days gone by, I could comfortably read up to fifteen comics per day, these days, due to work and suchlike, I can barely manage five[!].
    I must admit I came rather late to Watchmen, but fandom being what it is I practically knew the entire tale long before I got round to reading it. To absorb every nuance of each line and panel, I elected to read it in two parts, six issues each day, and it more than lived up to expectations. I dont expect these spin-offs will take that much effort, much less the insight to look for hidden narratives. I must say tho that unlike most fans who consider Watchmen 'timeless', I do relate it very much to the 80s in terms of how comics began aping how depressing real life was. But that aint a bad thing.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hello Karl:- I know what you mean about days which used to be filled up with comics. A stack of 100 pagers from DC, back when they were being published eight or ten a month for 12p each and that was more than a few hours gone. Now it takes far far longer to read a good comic, and far, far less to skate through a bad one!

      Of all the BW spin-offs, there's none which will repay re-reading as Watchmen did, and does. The best of the bunch is Silk Spectre, which has moments of genuine charm, but which is also terribly thin and woven together from cliche.

      I've never been able to think of Watchmen itself as timeless. But as I know I've said several times already, I have been fiercely reminded of how wonderfully innovative and focused it was/is by the BW titles. In that, I suppose they had a purpose beyond rustling together the silver ...

      Delete
  4. I like to think, based on my admiration for just about everything else Mr Cooke has done, that this was a momentary abberation. That he saw an opportunity to get some crowd funding to support other works such as his crime books and took it. That this was work for hire and he treated it with the contempt it deserved. That's what I like to think. Never having been a fan of Watchmen, although impressed by its technical brilliance, I've been disdainful of what's been done but surprised only that its taken DC this long.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hello Peter:- I do suspect that the folks involved in Before Watchmen are going to suffer in terms of how they're perceived by a significant number of readers. I've been very fond of Cooke's work since Batman: Ego. Yet Before Watchmen has started me wondering about his past work. It too seems to be often unengaged on an emotional level and focused on genre. I might not have noticed those things to the same degree if I'd not read BW, which has all the weaknesses of Cooke's work and few of their strengths. None of which to say that I'd want to ever do away with Batman/The Spirit, for example, which is one of my most loved issues ever. But it is that the work on BW reflects badly on many of those involved, because the soullessness of this project emphasizes - to my mind - only their weaknesses. It's a shame.

      Delete
  5. "The Minutemen" is growing on me. I didn't like the first issue much, but compared to most of the rest of the BW comics, it's at least readable, with its bright moments now and then.

    I really like the Silk Spectre series. It's the standout comic of the BW summer. By far. It helps a lot that it's not obsessed with tying itself too closely with specific insidents from the source material. (I'm surprised that we didn't get the aftermath of the snow globe incident, when Moloch attacked and took Sally and young Laurie hostage in order to draw out the rest of the surviving Minutemen for his long-sought REVENGE! But fortunately, Bobby Kennedy to the rescue!)

    "Silk Spectre" took a theme - Laurie's anger at her mother's super-heroics obsession and control issues - and went with that, and is now providing us with a romp through the 1960s, full of fun, not without suspense and tension. (And I also like the fact that there's no 1960s decontruction going on. God, that kind of thing is not quite as old as the era itself, but it sure seems like it.)

    Other than those two, I'm either actively hostile or fairly indifferent. The art's good. Heck, the art's often great! But there is too much repetition, and everyone seems too worshipful of the source material to even make an attempt at re-invention or interpretation. So what we get is imitation and ostentation. And some of it is bad. And none of it is particularly entertaining.

    "Nite Owl" could have been one of the better ones, but this obsession with the brutishness of Dan's awful father is distracting. I was very much pre-disposed to like almost any presentation of the Nite Owl/Rorschach team, but they are not pulling it off. I did like the Twilight Lady. That was pretty trippy.

    I did not dislike "Rorchach" as much as you, Colin, but I'm still putting it in the "Hostile" category. The Rorschach's Journal segment was just wrong. JUST WRONG, I tell you. The beating in the sewer was, well, kinda dumb. Still, the series actually does have the potential to pick up a little in the next three issues as an angry Rorschach rises up after his beating and takes it out on a serial killer. (My fingers are crossed that this series will get better. But I'm not putting any money on it.)

    Everything else - "The Comedian," "Ozymandias" and "Dr. Manhattan" - I'm placing in the "Indifferent" category. Nothing in them has made me roll my eyes as I wonder how the writer could have missed the point so clumsily. But I'm also not particularly interested in what happens next. "Dr. Manhattan" has just started and the other two have four issues to go, so I'm hoping they pick up a little. (And I was a little intrigued by the end of Ozymandias #2. That is based on one incident from the source material - mentioned in one panel in #11 - that I've always been kind of curious about.)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hello Hoosier:- Thank you for putting forward a more positive – though certainly not uncritical – view of Before Watchmen. Firstly, because it shows that the blog doesn’t seem to be shouting down different points of view, and because it’s good to have a contrary opinion here. Merci.

      Minutemen is certainly streets ahead of the other BW books with the exception of Silk Spectre, to which Cooke also makes significant contributions of course. I don’t think Silk Spectre is a good book. It’s too mired in cliché, too concerned to play with the most facile aspects of genre and pop culture history. But the art does have a considerable charm – there’s that word again in connection with Amanda Conner’s often lovely pages – and that pushes the book to the front of a rather unpleasant queue. I can see that we disagree with each other there, but that’s fine :) I think it’s a real shame that the whole title hadn’t been published without a Watchmen connection, in the same way as Watchmen had its Charlton roots severed. Silk Spectre makes no sense at all to me as a component of a Watchmen universe, but as a title on its own, it might have been more impressive.

      “actively hostile or fairly indifferent”: yep, that sums up my stance on things! I was braced to have to argue the fact that the quality of the work didn’t redeem the immorality of the project, but that’s just not been a problem I’ve needed to engage with. Unlike you, I thought Note Owl and Rorschach were terrible, terrible books, but then I thought the same about the Comedian and Ozymandias. Dr Manhattan was laughably pretentious, but Hughes’ artwork did of course make the comic a real curate’s egg.

      I am in a strange way glad that I’ve been following the project for work elsewhere. I would have just ignored the project entirely. As it is, I’ve off-set the money spent on it on good causes elsewhere – which doesn’t actually ease my conscience, I fear – and I think the whole process has shown (1) how creatively bankrupt a great deal of the industry is, and (2) how BRILLIANT watchmen is. In an odd way, I’m glad the series was published. It’s shown – to my mind – the powers behind it and the folks involved – to a lesser or greater degree – as the pretenders and opportunists they are.

      Thanks, as I said, for disagreeing on some if not my points, and for doing so in such a generous fashion :)

      Delete
  6. CJ HÃ¥kansson5 September 2012 11:28

    Oh, that's right. I've seen a few pages of his Parker adaptation and thought it looked quite fine. I'm not much for reading adaptations, though, prefering the original written work. I'm one of those who feel that movie adaptations are rather pointless as well, if you don't offer anything new. An interpretation that you haven't thought of. Like any good cover of a song, should.

    That being said, I think that Point Blank from 1967, John Boorman's adaptation of Parker's The Hunter, is a magnificent movie, not only managing to capture the story, the themes, but also telling it in such a truly ingenious manner.

    Adaptations that slavishly follow plot or style, but not meaning, or that deforms the story to fit into pre-set, genre-accepted architecture, are truly reprehensible. A true disservice both to the audience and the original creator.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hello CJ:- The Parker adaptions don't, I fear, add anything to the novels. Much of what's fantastic about Stark's work gets lost on the page; the flat tone that appears immoral and yet illuminates soulless callousness, the sense of a hidden world lurking under the surface of the everyday; it all gets lost when reality is presented visually. What Cooke does achieve is a kind of highly skilled and thoroughly enjoyable celebration of genre. Not a business to be sneezed at - I've all Cooke's Parker books - but nothing that's essential either.

      Point Blank is a WONDERFUL novel, isn't it?

      You've got me thinking about where comics have succeeded in presenting adaptations which are as essential as the original. Much chin stroking may well be invested in that issue :)

      Delete
  7. CJ HÃ¥kansson5 September 2012 14:57

    Tomb of Dracula comes to mind. Marv Wolfman truly made Dracula into character that is both terrifying and at times sympathetic. I love it how childish and petty he can be, which rhymes very well with Van Helsing's description of him in Stoker's novel. His ego is ridiculously inflated and it's quite chilling that this monstrous narcissist has both the will (perhaps even the need) as well as the power to toy with our lives, the way he does.

    I also think that some of the Star Wars strips were really good. Especially the Goodwin/Williamson ones. But like ToD, they expand and continue on a story, rather than adapt it.

    Hmm.

    The James Bond strip was excellent in my opinion and sort of hammered home the ruthless horrible world and character of Bond, to a point where I felt them to be far more scary and nihilistic than the original books. On Her Majesty's Secret Service is a rather hardboiled read. Since Flemming wasn't a writer going for visual descriptions, all the action and violence, all the ugliness and megalomania in Bond's world is really enhanced by McLusky's brutal but fluid lines.

    The Destroyer from Marvel's magazine line also did a pretty good job, I think, and so did a lot of the material in The Savage Sword of Conan. Though, the latter was probably not surpassing the original texts. Which is admittedly hard to do, since Howard was such a 'physical' and strikingly inspirated writer.

    Oh and the different The Shadow adaptations? Holy crap. Dennis O'Neil and Kaluta's run on the character both mesmerized and scared me to bits as a kid. However, as much as I love it, their rather faithful version is surpassed by the modern interpretation by Andrew Helfer and Kyle Baker. That book was truly lightyears ahead of its time.

    But no, apart from James Bond and The Destroyer I can't think of any purebred 100% comic book adaptations at the moment. Something will come up though.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hello CJ:- By chance, I'm just reading a collection of the Bond strips from the 1960s. I had no idea that Kingsley Amis wrote the strip. I knew he'd written Colonel Sun, but not that he'd written the comic strips. They are, as you say, good stuff.

      Edginton and D'Israeli's The War Of The Worlds is an example of a good adapatation which comes to mind, although the collected edition isn't as satisfying as the version that was placed on the Dark Horse site, which presented each panel blodly and clearly. I should be able to recall a great many other adaptations, but it's the end of the day and my mind has quite seized up. Oh, there's Crumb's Genesis, of course, which is quite brilliant.

      If we're going from adaptations to new versions, then my memory seems to be working better. I did enjoy the Thomas/Windsor-Smith Conans, and the Wolfman/Colan/Palmer Dracula can still impress. I agree entirely on the Helfer/Baker Shadow books, which were out-there, sharp and very, very enjoyable. The Master Of Kung Fu issues often made very smart use of some of Rohmer's work, while leaving the more distasteful aspects of it far behind.

      I'm struggling here. I shall sleep on it :)

      Delete
  8. These prequels should come with a pull out check list. That way you too can play at home. *snark*
    Seriously though, this checklist style of writing breaks down the 4th wall too much for me. I don't care for it.

    The panels you show us almost feel like a modern day apology for the ugliness of the original SS/Comedian scene.

    I think that is what the creative teams of BW series don't get. Moore never flinched at ugliness and human weakness. He wrote it to make you face the things you would normally turn away from.. I think Gibbons was a perfect choice for his writing. Gibbons draws people with flaws. You know, normal people. You don't see perfect Barbie or Ken dolls in his work.

    Sorry if that turned into a rant.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hello there:- I know what you mean about the temptation to snark. One of the reasons I thought I ought to focus on the evidence - as I understood it - of a single page was to sidestep my own desire to blow a raspberry at this unfortunate project. Focusing on the detail of the whole business does help to stay relevant, or at least, that was my plan.

      There's no doubt that Cooke engages with the sexual politics of the SS/Comedian scene. And I wouldn't want him to have approached things in an horribly obvious relevant way. And yet, as I said in the above, it's the super-people stuff that seems to be the focus of the book. My feeling is that there ought to have been a far greater focus on the fact that a violent rape had just occured. I can see - or believe I can - that Cooke is suggesting that the time wouldn't have been able to engage with the rape, that it would've been dealt with in a relatively awkward, restrained and button-downed fashion. I think that could've been presented while still dealing with the situation.

      No rant was perceived. The Before Watchmen issues are, on the whole, an unfortunate business, and that does on occasion require a touch of venting.

      Delete
  9. Hello, Colin,

    I just wanted to comment on that big panel in the middle that's taking up two panel-slots on the page. It seems the artist wanted to contrast the past unity of the Minutemen with their eminent splitting up. And that's fine, but why does that take up two panels? It could've been used, for instance, to show more of the conflict between the group. To me, it looks like lazy storytelling. I wouldn't, however, want to say Cooke's a lazy storyteller. I read 'DC: The New Frontier' and enjoyed it. But, in this page, that's what it looks like.

    Also, I wanted to thank your for helping me understand and assess the importance of camera angles, page layouts and some of the other little things that go into the craft of comicbooking.

    Best wishes,

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hello M. R. Caio:- It's always a question of the reader's opinion in such things, isn't it? I'm with you on that middle row. It does seem that space is being wasted. The images are pretty, the basic idea is appropriate enough, and yet the point's being hammered without anything beyond the obvious being added. Perhaps if the rest of the page had been more telling ....

      Thanks for your kind words. I must say, I'm pretty convinced that I know just about zilch on such matters as layouts and so on. I just use the block to try to work out my own response to the material before me. In that, it's heartening to think that someone else might on occasion get thinking about the same things too, so cheers!

      Delete
  10. Nice review mate. This work comes across as lazy, disinterested amatuer work from a guy that is not an amatuer.
    The whole BW mess just seems so mildly depressing. I loved Watchmen in my younger days. It along with Sandman and Hellblazer was what got me thinking comics were more than just X-men and Spiderman.
    Watchmen has been loved by people for decades and will be for more decades. Doing the big business cash grab by DC is bad enough but doing it with such poor quality is just sad.
    Even worse than corporate immorality(happens the world over, like death and taxes) is the reaction to the whole thing by a sub-group of fans. The "how dare Alan Moore not shut up and take the money, protesting his rights, who does he think he is?"

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hello James:- Thank you!

      That's a lovely way of putting it.; "lazy, disinterested amatuer work from a guy that is not an amatuer". But then, DC does seem to be all too often working as a pseudo-fan-fic factory. Those creators who side-step that are to be lauded to high heaven, but all too many seem content - if not desperate - to target the blokeish Rump. Sigh, and sigh again.

      I'm confused too about the desperately poor quality of the work considering the shadow in which it was done. And despite the competency that's occasionally on show, it is desperately poor, given how brilliant the original is. And that's ignoring the ethical issues, of course.

      As for the fans who've responded as you quite rightly describe, they're obviously beyond the debating with. I try not to think about it, but then I find myself straying into a crevice of the net where the apologists are gathering and it's still shocking to me.

      Sigh and sigh again ....

      Delete