Alan Moore doesn't want Watchmen back

[ClayinCA]

I agree to some extent - it's why I eventually stopped reading Star Trek novels. I used to love them, but they fell into this trap where every little detail had to be explained with a trilogy. I exaggerate, but I've always been slightly surprised we didn't see a "Picard: Why He Drinks Earl Grey: the Quadrilogy" (complete with a Janeway appearance, and a cameo by a 300-year old McCoy).

Your post reminds me of something completely off topic and trivial, but I have to get it off my chest. Greg Cox forgive me if you're reading this, but there's this part in the Khan prequel novels where he is in a submarine on Earth, and he exhibits "two dimensional" thinking during a battle. I suppose it's meant to set up the later battle scene in Wrath of Khan where Spock notes that Khan is thinking in two dimensions. But the whole point that Spock is trying to make is that Khan is thinking two dimensionally because although he's intelligent, he's inexperienced. By having Khan experience a submarine battle in the novel, it essentially undermines the character in the movie because then his two dimensional thinking becomes a intellectual flaw, not a matter of being inexperienced.

Not to stay off-topic, but I always thought Spock was referring to Khan's lack of experience with space battles, not combat in general - and the submarine episode, if anything, backs up Spock's idea, since Khan would only have been in battle using "two-dimensional thinking."

 

[Professor Zoom]

But wouldn't submarine battle be in 3-D? And wouldn't Khan learn from experience?

Why would space and underwater be all that much difference? Or even air and space?

 

[milo bloom]

I only read Watchmen for the first time this past year, in some part because of the media attention, and I found it absolutely amazing.

Now, I'm not a big comics person. I read some Spider-Man and Avengers in the late 80's, GI Joe, Transformers, TMNT, stuff like that, but I hadn't followed a comic in ages. I was a huge fan of Batman TAS and the more recent Justice League animated series (and of course I loved the SuperFriends and stuff as a kid).

So, I got the "archetypes" he was using. I understood how that world worked. And as great as the story was, there was still a part of me that couldn't help but feel that it would have been even better if we had known these characters for years before hand, and when presented with this story, we would know that this was the last thing we would ever see of them, it would have been even better.

So I can't say the idea of prequels/sequels is an absolutely terrible idea. I wish Moore and DC could come to an agreement to do them together to keep the quality up, because the NiteOwl/Rorschach possibilities alone practically sell themselves.

 

[CaptainCanada]

I figured he owned League of Extraordinary Gentlemen at least. If he has refused money I guess he's principled but he could have at least put that to some worthy cause or something.

Originally, he sold the rights he owned for the money, figuring that he could disassociate himself from the film versions easily enough.

That changed when some other screenwriters sued him and the studio over League of Extraordinary Gentlemen, alleging that Moore had stolen ideas from some spec script they had written. Moore was called to testify at the trial, a process he found insulting (he famously said that he'd have been treated better if he'd been accused of pedophilia), and then the studio settled the case, which Moore likewise found very insulting, since to him it implied that there was something to the claims.

After that, he swore off all involvement with films.

As to the OP, that's a good call, I think. Moore is genius who is more than occasionally a bit of a crank, but he's right here.

 

[CaptJimboJones]

Personally I think the Watchmen story was very much a product of its era, and simply doesn't resonate today the way it did in the Cold War. That's why the movie, as much as I enjoyed it, seemed, to me at least, wildly out of step with the times. I can't see any point in additional Watchmen stories (particularly if they're not created by Moore), since the original has lost so much of the social/cultural/political punch that made it relevant at the time.

I had the exact same response to Terry Gilliam's Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas film. While it was a very well-made, faithful adaption of the book, to current audiences the story - which is meant to chronicle the end of the idealism of the '60s and the nation's descent into the hedonistic debasement of the '70s - just seems like a couple of stoned douchebags running around Vegas being assholes.

Would anyone really want to read a book by some hack novelist-for-hire about the further adventures of Raoul Duke and Dr. Gonzo?

 

[Myasishchev]

^Hey, I liked Transmetropolitan.

 

[RJDiogenes]

^^ And Doonesbury.

Anyway, even back in the 80s a lot of people didn't get Watchmen. That's how we got the Darker & Grittier fad that's still polluting pop culture to this day: A bunch of hacks imitating the superficial aspects of Watchmen, Dark Knight et cetera.

 

[Kibbin]

With the way he went later (Strikes back, Allstar), part of me wonders if Dark Knight got what it was about or if it was another ott "dark and gritty" comic book we mistakenly assumed was serious and grown up

 

[Agenda]

But wouldn't submarine battle be in 3-D? And wouldn't Khan learn from experience?

Why would space and underwater be all that much difference? Or even air and space?

That's what I was thinking. Maybe the average joe wouldn't learn from it, but this isn't the average joe we're talking about. This is Khan.

 

[Myasishchev]

^^ And Doonesbury.

The pension fund was just sitting there!

And even named Duke. HST probably could've had a lawsuit, although I'm glad that road was never pursued, since Duke was the awesomest part of Doonesbury by a country mile.

With the way he went later (Strikes back, Allstar), part of me wonders if Dark Knight got what it was about or if it was another ott "dark and gritty" comic book we mistakenly assumed was serious and grown up

It's really weird to go through Frank Miller's bibliography and chart his downfall. Even in the great works, all the elements of his current status as self-parody were there--the twin streaks of homoeroticism and fascism, the abstracted art, the juvenile stabs at the mass media, the ultra-noir narration, and above all the whores, whores, whores! It does make one ask "Was he ever actually good?" And the answer is, yeah, he was, back when he wasn't deranged and was able to keep those elements in check, and use them for good, instead of evil. But he probably was always crazy.

 

[Kail]

I'm almost ashamed to admit that I would gladly read a Nite Owl/Rorschach team-up series set during their prime crime-fighting days.

Me too! I think they could tell lots of prequel stories about these characters. I don't think it would diminish them at all. Someone up thread said "what more could you add to these characters that have not already been said", what character development has Superman had over the last 100 years?

 

[CaptainCanada]

It's really weird to go through Frank Miller's bibliography and chart his downfall. Even in the great works, all the elements of his current status as self-parody were there--the twin streaks of homoeroticism and fascism, the abstracted art, the juvenile stabs at the mass media, the ultra-noir narration, and above all the whores, whores, whores! It does make one ask "Was he ever actually good?" And the answer is, yeah, he was, back when he wasn't deranged and was able to keep those elements in check, and use them for good, instead of evil. But he probably was always crazy.

To my mind, he's an example of a writer who was actually helped by censorship; after he got big enough/comics got dark enough to include whatever he wanted, he gave free rein to prurient interest. Daredevil, the comic where he had the least opportunity to indulge in lots of graphic sex and violence, remains his best work.

 

[firehawk12]

All I can tell you is that nothing is sacred. Hollywood would make a sequel to Citizen Kane if they thought it would make money.

I know. What annoys me is that I would imagine the people who run DC are "comic book fans", so they must know what they are doing is wrong but they're still doing it anyway.

 

[Myasishchev]

It's really weird to go through Frank Miller's bibliography and chart his downfall. Even in the great works, all the elements of his current status as self-parody were there--the twin streaks of homoeroticism and fascism, the abstracted art, the juvenile stabs at the mass media, the ultra-noir narration, and above all the whores, whores, whores! It does make one ask "Was he ever actually good?" And the answer is, yeah, he was, back when he wasn't deranged and was able to keep those elements in check, and use them for good, instead of evil. But he probably was always crazy.

To my mind, he's an example of a writer who was actually helped by censorship; after he got big enough/comics got dark enough to include whatever he wanted, he gave free rein to prurient interest. Daredevil, the comic where he had the least opportunity to indulge in lots of graphic sex and violence, remains his best work.

I dunno, I thought he peaked with 300, which is a technically marvelous work (if undermined by selective history and... questionable character design choices).

If I had to choose a specific moment where Frank Miller went batshit, I would guess it's the Dark Knight Strikes Again, which is some of the most monstrous dreck I've ever read, so incoherent, dull, and stupid to not even be plausible as a parody, like one might (as Frank Miller has) argue that All-Star is. But I should admit that I've never been the biggest Sin City fan, and it's entirely possible the later volumes went to hell...

Actually, that's a counter-theory--Marv's story is already laden with as much noirish nonsense, ultraviolence and fanservice as a story could possibly have and still come off as a work of excellence. To try to top it (several times), you'd almost have to cross the very thin line that separated the gritty tale of vengeance from a goofy, retarded cartoon.

I know. What annoys me is that I would imagine the people who run DC are "comic book fans", so they must know what they are doing is wrong but they're still doing it anyway.

I sometimes believe that most of the rubbish DC has pulled over the past decade has been, in fact, because they are run by comic book fans--in pretty much the most pejorative sense of the word.

 

[Kibbin]

Sort of like fanfic is written by fans of the show/comic/whatever. Fans often can't show restraint and thus will throw together crossovers which sound good but don't work, will bring back characters, defeating a powerful story moment, all because they like that character. Fans are sometimes the last person you want to listen to on how to run a series.

 

[Myasishchev]

Sort of like fanfic is written by fans of the show/comic/whatever. Fans often can't show restraint and thus will throw together crossovers which sound good but don't work, will bring back characters, defeating a powerful story moment, all because they like that character. Fans are sometimes the last person you want to listen to on how to run a series.

I think it was Warren Ellis who said of the phenomenon (and I'm paraphrasing, to say least) that you should never let a true fan write the stories--anyone who has an unconditional love for what came before will, at best, reiterate what has already been done a little better, but will probably just regurgitate it, with all the loss in quality that would literally entail.

 

[YLu]

Interestingly, at one point Moore himself wanted to do a Watchmen sequel, called Minutemen. I remember reading an interview where he mentioned it. He said he wanted to do it but wouldn't as long as DC owned the characters. It wouldn't surprise me if whoever at DC concocted this new offer was thinking of just that interview.

 

[RJDiogenes]

^^ I'd like to see Moore do a graphic novel crossing over Watchmen with Tom Strong. That would give us the equivalent to the ending to 1963 that we never got.

With the way he went later (Strikes back, Allstar), part of me wonders if Dark Knight got what it was about or if it was another ott "dark and gritty" comic book we mistakenly assumed was serious and grown up

If it wasn't for Daredevil I'd be inclined to agree that Dark Knight was a happy accident. But as others upthread have said, he really was good at first, and then went batshit crazy.

 

[ITL]

^^ I'd like to see Moore do a graphic novel crossing over Watchmen with Tom Strong. That would give us the equivalent to the ending to 1963 that we never got.

I love 1963 - some of my favourite Moore work, and a great riff on Silver Age comic books. But as you say, unfinished. Dammit!

 

[Myasishchev]

I thought 1963 did have an ending... years and years on. Did I dream that?