"Before Watchmen" - Good idea or Bad idea?

The comic world was abuzz yesterday with news that DC will be publishing seven mini-series that will expand the Watchmen universe:

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.”

Alan Moore's response
Fans of the series are already aware that Watchmen creator Alan Moore is less than pleased with DC doing ANYTHING with the Watchman universe. He was recently quoted as saying "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 - is Moore right? Is revisiting the series just a shameless money-grab from DC, who are out of fresh ideas? Or does Moore just refuse to accept that comic book companies are a business, and that making money is a good thing?

My 2 cents - it's a little of both.

It's all about the Fans
But what it boils down to is not what DC wants or what Moore wants - it's what the fans want. And the fans, as always, will vote with their pocket books.

I can practically guarantee that these minis will be among the top selling books each month, and that the trades that will surely follow will be under many X-mas trees. Why? Because people love these characters.

Will the stories live up to the awesomeness of the original series? No. I don't think anyone in their right mind - including Dan Dido - honestly believe that. Just as DK2 failed to live up to the original Dark Knight series, so will this venture.

But would it be so bad if the minis in question turned out to be just "good"? I mean, the talent is there (Straczynski, Azzarello, Hughes, Kubert to name a few). So what's the harm in giving the fans some more of what they crave? (And making some money off it in the process?)

It's been 25 years since the original story was printed. I think that's enough breathing room so that Watchmen will not be judged by these upcoming spin-offs, just as "Gone with the Wind" wasn't affected by "Scarlett".

Moore said in a recent interview, "As far as I know, there weren’t that many prequels or sequels to ‘Moby-Dick.'" He's right. But if there were, the fans would have happily bought them. 

----

UPDATE: Here's Straczynski's take on Moore's complaints. And I think he makes a great point.

Comments

[Scribblesfromthedarkside.blogspot.com]

Moore is right. All you have to do is look at "The New 52" to see that DC is doing everything it can to try and stay relevant, EXCEPT introduce new material. It's a floundering that has been going on back before the 52 countdown, and maybe as far back as the Hush storyline. Although I'd probably concede that the 52 countdown was indeed the catalyst for the current flailing we're seeing today.

Add to that a dismal display at the box office for everything except Batman, and really the only thing DC has going for it are the animated features they've been releasing to DVD. Even those features aren't selling enough units to stem the tide of failure. The only thing that may right the ship is a change in thinking of how the books are run. Something you're not going to get under Didio and Lee or even Johns for that matter. Marvel exists in their stable pattern because they don't destroy their entire continuity whenever bad ideas are introduced. They work around them. Sometimes they're hokey, but it sure beats negating the entire back issue collection your audience has amassed by waving a magic wand and saying that everything that came before this point here is now irrelevant. And then go on to repeat the same mistakes that lead you to blow up your entire continuity in the first place.

Currently the only DC book I get is Detective Comics, mainly because it's really the only book that hasn't been hurt or changed by yet another shift in continuity. I'll be getting Batman Beyond as well when that starts back up, again mainly due to BB being outside the screwed main DC continuity. That's it. Why should I invest time and more importantly money into a title that can (and more than likely will) change again just because someone has another bright idea to grab more money by gimmicking the title with some lame plot device (ie. The death/return of Superman, the 'death'/return of Batman, the death/return of Flash, the death/return of Green Lantern, infinite crisis, final crisis, new 52)?

There comes a point where not only as a collector, but as a fan, you have to say enough is enough and just walk away from the stupidity of the repetition.

[Carlos]

My take is - this should be about making the fans happy. DC has little to gain and everything to lose if these suck. I like the work of most of the creators here, so I'm cautiously optimistic. Sure, it could be crap, but that's not going to tarnish the reputation of the original series for me.

BTW: I totally agree with your point on the continuity issues with DC. And the fact that for the most part, they seem to head straight for resetting everything instead of writing solid material (resetting just leads to more resetting because the problem of "lack of creativity" eventually rears its head again once the "wow" of the reset wears off).

But on the other hand, I must admit I like that DC helped my pocket book. I dropped quite a few New 52 titles after 3 issues and now stick with the gems/personal favorites (of which there are still a good amount). Being discerning has cut my weekly comic bill down.

[Scribblesfromthedarkside.blogspot.com]

I just read JMS' response to Alan Moore, and if you look in the comments section you'll see a response from Mark Waid (who was at DC at the time of Watchmen's publication). Waid essentially calls out JMS on his B.S.

Really what this whole debacle can be likened to is if the publishers of Moby Dick decided to have Melville write a sequel 25 years after the first publication. Nevermind that the work stands as a classic on its own and really shouldn't be expanded upon or you risk ruining the mythos of the original (see the Star Wars prequels for justification) just because you've run out of items in your stable to legally exploit for more profit. Again, there's a time when you have to learn to walk away from a project and just leave it be. Watchmen is one of those classics (yes, like Moby Dick) that shouldn't be exploited for further monetary gain.

[Carlos]

But I don't think that's the point. Art may be created by the artist, but it's a gift to the audience. So the audience should be penalized for wanting more? And, subsequently, the art house should be penalized for trying to give it to them?

Of course, I'm looking at this as not a legitimate extension of the original work. This is more of a "cover song". And those can be fun. It's not the original artist, so it's ok if they have some fun with it, take some chances.

But I don't blame George Michael for Limp Biscuits crappy version of Faith. Nor do I think less of that 80s pop gem of an album because of what Fred Durst did to the title track.

[Scribblesfromthedarkside.blogspot.com]

Would you blame Rob Zombie for a crap remake of Halloween? Or Jan DeBont for his crap remake of Psycho?

[Pi_3.14159...]

For me, it's about the content. Watchmen stands by itself partly because in the Watchmen universe, it is the most interesting thing to happen.

Now, possible future things could potentially be more interesting, but it would take a lot. Past things? Well, there was stuff that happened before the events of Watchmen, sure. But none of the stuff described as having happened, using the continuity as given from Watchmen, is as interesting as Watchmen itself. You can have them fighting bad guys. Sure. Whatever. You can have them fighting the law initially. That could be somewhat interesting.

There are two problems I have with prequels, though. Number one is that you know what is going to happen in the end. When watching the Star Wars prequels, I never wondered whether Obi Wan or Anakin or the Emperor or Yoda would die because they obviously were around later. Scenes with them can't be as tense when you know they survive to go on to do other things. In the same vein, any story where the characters are in danger or the planet is in danger or anything like that cannot be as nerve-wracking because you know the outcome. Number two is that the prequel often has the characters building up to be the characters in the original piece when they are most interesting. Something I disliked about X-Men Origins: Wolverine was that Wolvie was kind of sucky throughout until he got the adamantium put in. I don't need to see Wolverine moping about until he gets metal bonded to his bones and he becomes a savage killing machine. In the same vein, I don't want to see Night Owl in his prime (because he is more interesting as a fat older guy) and I don't want to see Rorschach before the dog incident (because he's not as interesting).

To be fair, Watchmen isn't one of my favorite comics. I've read it, and it was okay, but I don't swear by it. It isn't something I think is the best graphic novel ever (or even close for that matter). Which means another reason I don't think Watchmen needs a prequel is because I don't think the original was necessarily great to begin with.

I do think other creators should be able to do Watchmen in the same vein that I think other creators should be able to do stuff with TDKR or Kingdom Come or Earth X or Age of Apocalypse or House of M. I don't think it's a good idea to do those, but I don't think that other creators shouldn't be allowed to (if legally able to).

[Carlos]

@ Scribbles: That's my point. I would blame Rob Zombie, but it wouldn't make me feel any different about Carpenter's version. Two visions from two different times.

@ Pi: I totally understand the "well, we know he's not gonna die, so this loses some of the drama". But I'm hoping storytelling can help with that. I mean, we always know that Batman isn't going to die. Even when they kill him, he's back!

And I agree that DC should be able to do what they want with the property they commissioned. It may not be a good idea to many, and it may end up backfiring, but it also may end up OK. I've learned long ago not to judge a (comic) book by it's cover...or at least what I think it's cover is going to look like.