Except Batman and Superman have been continually published. So, it's not like someone has recently revisited Superman.
^Yeah but the look is just too similar. I was referring to Moore's use of characters from "Alice in Wonderland", "Peter Pan", "Dracula", Jules Verne (though they're closer to or over 100 years).
Reported to moderator. Trolling. I dunno. The Dan Garrett Beetle was way different, he had powers and shit. Ted Kord originally? Could be. I've never delved deep into the Charlton books, and I doubt I ever will. Post-League Ted Kord was way different. I mean, I guess they were both non-superhumans with gadgets and money, but one was dressed like a beetle, the other like a bat. C'mon.
My 2 cents on the prequels is that I'm siding with Alan Moore on this one. Not from any highfalutin' creator-rights perspective, but the fact is since Watchman was simply a riff on existing superheroes (the fact he planned to use the Charlton characters, etc) then if they do prequels, all they're just going to do are rehashes of stories and characters of years gone by. And while from a purely prurient perspective the idea of seeing more of Silk Spectre I and II is appealing (especially if the former is drawn to resemble Carla Gugino from the movie; Silk Spectre II I thought was hotter in the comics; no offense meant to Malin A.) I just fail to see the point. That said, DC has been threatening to do a sequel or prequel for Watchmen since Watchmen came out, so no one, including Moore, should be surprised they finally decided to do it. I expect to see DC announcing Dark Knight Returns Again, Kingdom Come: The Revenge and Another Killing Joke in the near future. Alex
Flawed argument when it comes to comics (and, I guess, any property really). Going by that logic, you could ask what was the point of doing more Superman comics after S&S left? Or more Batman comics after Bob Kane? Or, hell, why did DC bother rehashing stories after Crisis on Infinite Earths since that brought the DC Universe to a relative close.
The greater time as well as a bunch of adaptations being made would leave no one thinking the original authors approved of a new use; after this amount of time with the writer still alive and only one adaptation, no matter how much Moore disowns the prequels, some will think he had some involvement (example, someone here thought Don Bluth was involved with the Land Before Time sequels).
This is a very good point. Watchmen was basically Moore taking the Charleton heroes and using them as a satire/deconstruction of various superhero archetypes (the supergod, the grim vigilante, the millionaire playboy, the underdressed babe, the military/superspy, the supergenius). Once a company starts doing more stories with them they risk turning into nothing but generic superheroes. There's also the challenge of any prequel (as we all know from George Lucas): the audience knows how the story ends and the writer has to tell a story where the characters can't actually change and existing continuity has to stay intact. That makes any drama difficult to construct.
I'm not quite sure what you mean by that. Am I not allowed to express my own view if someone else has said something similar?
WB wanting to do a sequel to Watchmen has always surprised me considering the box office take from the first film wasn't all that great. But they will make a sequel or prequel out of anything. And they'll Hollywood the Watchmen straight to hell.
Here's an article I found today on CNN that goes into a lot of depth on the matter. On a separate note, I watched the film in the cinema having not read the book. The book was so concerned with backstories and histories that happened before the starting point of the film that I always thought of it as a "sequel to a film that was never made." maybe the powers that be felt the same way and want to make that un made film. I don't know.
I haven't read the appearance but, unless it's a completely parody, that seems like much too recent a character to be available for general use and closer to stealing.