Discussion in 'Science Fiction & Fantasy' started by Admiral_Young, Oct 23, 2011.
I'm going to quote Peter David's response, because it is so true.
I hope they're as good as the Dune prequels.
Yep Peter David's response was pretty good.
I don't really get the criticism that the creative efforts would be better served on creating new properties. These are original stories. Yes, they're using established characters, but in new ways and they're telling stories that haven't been told before.
It could be a spectacular failure but it's worth trying. If they're crap they'll be forgotten and we'll just go back to reading Watchmen.
^ This. And if they're great, which some probably will be, we'll still go back to reading Watchmen.
I get it. Rather than creating NEW ideas and NEW concepts, it's recycling and repackaging. Maybe it's funny to say on a Star Trek board, but, I would rather have had a brand new sci-fi show than Voyager or Enterprise. Sure, they were new characters and new stories, but it felt same old same old.
It's basically the reboot/remake argue with TV and film. Where are the new ideas?
That's not to say I think it's wrong--to be honest though, I'm not horribly interested--Moore created a very rich universe, however, there are no sacred cows in commercial work.
I think Peter David sums it up best, esp. the bit about Moore using older characters in his League series.
And I've always thought one of the few weakspots of Watchmen was the fact that they're oneshot characters being put through the wringer. It is a testament to Moore and Gibbons that it still came out so well, but it's still always struck me as just not hard-hitting enough because they were new characters and not ones we had grown up with having to deal with all this. Kinda like The Undiscovered Country introducing Valeris. Who didn't go "duh, it's the new character" when watching that movie for the first time? You can argue about whether or not Saavik actually would have done it, but had the movie used her in that capacity, the surprise would have been far more effective.
I'll give these a shot, though that Dr. Manhattan cover gives me the giggles cause I know he ain't got no britches on standing behind that girl...
But it is a new idea, it's just a new idea using characters with some history. It's not a rewrite of Watchmen.
Besides, it's not as if it's an either/or situation. It's not like these guys have one story left in them. I'm sure they'll create other stuff at some point.
And the concepts weren't the problem with ENT & VOY, it was the execution that made them same old same old.
Peter David makes sense, as usual. but personally, i'm not at all interested in more Watchmen.
Thank you, I forgot to make that same observation in my post. Both were great concepts.
I didn't say it was a rewrite. But it is going back to the same creative well.
The point is, it's not about the creators. Creators create, that's what they do. However, they are also going to create what those who pay the bills ask them to create.
All of these are talented people--DC chose well--but they could've also been asked to create NEW ideas. But they weren't. They were asked to take a comic book that's 25 years old and make some new stuff from it. And I believe they will do the best job they can.
However, what if they turned to Brian Azzarello and said, "Hey man, skies the limit, what do you want to do?" (Which, I'm assuming happened with Spaceman.) What if DC gave as much push and PR to something new?
Obviously, that would be a huge business risk, something a corporation wouldn't do. But that's the sentiment behind the "why don't they do something new?"
Execution is true of ANYTHING new OR old. But, what if Paramount had spent the money on some NEW sci-fi franchise, without the creative shackles of 700 hours of canon (which fanboys won't let you violate) and expectation (which you can't let ANYONE done.). What about NEW creative ideas?
That's the sentiment being expressed. It's a very safe thing to go back to an established intellectual property. (Which, again, is why a corporation is going to do it.)
It's safe until you begin to devalue your intellectual property. Up until this point, Watchmen has been praised as an "untarnished masterpiece" by the masses. After this? Watchmen becomes not just what Alan Moore wrote, but also what Person A wrote, Person B wrote, Person C wrote, etc. And if what they wrote is not nearly as good as the original, then what happens to the property? All I can say is I hope the extra $$$ is worth it.
That IS a risk, yes. But, small compared to pretty much the guaranteed $$$. So, for DC, it will be a success.
And, there have been good Batman stories, and bad Batman stories. And Batman is still valuable.
Not to mention one assumes it will draw interest to Watchmen again...just as the film did.
Batman is valuable because the character himself has caught on with people. He's popular enough to be passed on between different creators - good and bad - and remain unscathed.
Watchmen is valuable because of its overall reputation as the "Citizen Kane of comic books" (whether one agrees with that or not). What happens when you tarnish that reputation with new material that doesn't have a hope in hell of being as good? I don't think the Dark Knight Strikes Again did the Dark Knight Returns any favors.
No Rorshack/Nite Owl team-up book? That seemed like a no-brainer to me. I hope they will at least appear in each other's books.
GAAAAHHHHHHHHH!! Why did you bring up the Book That Shall Not Be Named!!?!?
Every time someone brings up the book that shall not be named...it reminds me of the trial thread. Ahhh memories.
Nor did Strikes Again make Returns any worse. It's still the same read no matter what followed.
GAHHHH! YOU NAMED IT! GAHHHHHHHHHH!
Trial. Am I the only one who remembers the Frank Miller trial thread? It seems like that sometimes...
Separate names with a comma.