DC To Publish "Watchmen" Prequels

[The Toyroom]

You KNEW they've been itching to do this:

http://shelf-life.ew.com/2012/02/01/watchmen-prequels-exclusive-details/

It's a great line-up of creative talent on these mini-series so you know that a lot of people won't be able to turn away from these. But I don't really see a sense in these since the original maxi-series stands well on it's own and you don't really need to see where the characters came from...all that matters is where they are going.

The real reason for these lies in the fact that DC just wants to have continued use of these characters...Isn't the urban legend something along the lines that if DC does not keep "Watchmen" in print (which they have done for over 25 years) then the rights revert back to Alan Moore? By doing prequels they sort of stake their claim to the characters above and beyond what Moore and Dave Gibbons did in their groundbreaking series.

This is further proof that the modern DC is nothing like the DC I grew up with...There is no care or stewardship of these characters anymore...Instead they're just treated as cash cows and will continue to milk them until they dry up.

I know my $$$ won't make a diff, but I plan on boycotting all of these. I've got the originals. Accept no substitutes...

[thunderbolt]

yawn, without Moore, it really isn't canon is it? Dissapointed that some of the talent doesn't have any backbone and refuse to do this stuff.

[MIB41]

I LOVE the original Watchmen. I might peek in and see what they look like. But I too fear this will pale by any measure to the original. Nothing can touch that.

[WannabeMego]

DC's Official Announcement: DC ENTERTAINMENT OFFICIALLY ANNOUNCES “BEFORE WATCHMEN

[The Toyroom]

^ Nice to see Len Wein (Watchmen's original editor) getting work again but...Yuck!

[spacecaps]

They kind of covered all the characters back stories in Watchmen. What's left to tell?

[kingdom warrior]

You KNEW they've been itching to do this:

http://shelf-life.ew.com/2012/02/01/watchmen-prequels-exclusive-details/

It's a great line-up of creative talent on these mini-series so you know that a lot of people won't be able to turn away from these. But I don't really see a sense in these since the original maxi-series stands well on it's own and you don't really need to see where the characters came from...all that matters is where they are going.

The real reason for these lies in the fact that DC just wants to have continued use of these characters...Isn't the urban legend something along the lines that if DC does not keep "Watchmen" in print (which they have done for over 25 years) then the rights revert back to Alan Moore? By doing prequels they sort of stake their claim to the characters above and beyond what Moore and Dave Gibbons did in their groundbreaking series.

This is further proof that the modern DC is nothing like the DC I grew up with...There is no care or stewardship of these characters anymore...Instead they're just treated as cash cows and will continue to milk them until they dry up.

I know my $$$ won't make a diff, but I plan on boycotting all of these. I've got the originals. Accept no substitutes...

Absolutely 100% agree!

The only thing that I ever wanted was Alan Moore writing the complete novel "Under the Hood" that I would have supported......not this.

[kingdom warrior]

I like how "Slick" DC is by putting all those top talents on the books.......shame to them for not saying no.....

[The Toyroom]

I like how "Slick" DC is by putting all those top talents on the books.......shame to them for not saying no.....

Unfortunately everyone needs a paycheck...

[spacecaps]

"My books are still the same books as they were before they were made into films. The books haven't changed. I'm reminded of the remark by, I think it was Raymond Chandler, where he was asked about what he felt about having his books "ruined" by Hollywood. And he led the questioner into his study and showed him all the books there on the bookshelf, and said, Look—there they all are. They're all fine. They're fine. They're not ruined. They're still there. And I think that's pretty much the attitude I take. If the books are as good as I think they are, then they are the things that will endure. And if the films are as bad as I think they are, then they are the things that will not endure. So, I suppose we'll see at the end of the day, whenever that is." -Alan Moore

[kingdom warrior]

Unfortunately everyone needs a paycheck...

so true.........

[madmarva]

Anthony, I totally respect you, but I gotta disagree about the Watchmen thing.

I'm not sure if I'll buy any of these comics or not. Cooke's Minute Men title will be hard to pass up because it's probably going to be the closest thing to a JSA book set in the 40s that I'm likely to see printed in my lifetime with the added advantage of being produced by one of the industry's best.

But, my budget will be my primary concern, not any loyalty to Alan Moore or to a piece of storytelling. DC/Warner's has offered Moore a piece of the action on all projects involving the Watchmen. He's the one playing the part of a martyr.

It's Moore's fault that he signed what he considers a "bad" contract with DC. All work for hire agreements look out for the "big guy" in the equation. I know. I've signed plenty of them and had plenty of people sign them for me working in journalism for 20 years.

Moore should have known from the beginning that if the miniseries was popular DC would find a way to milk it. For a guy considered by many to be a genius, he had very little vision for where the comics business could be headed. And for that matter, when the contracts were signed, DC had no assurance it would be able to keep the series in print as a compilation for the next quarter of a century. Nothing like that had been done before in comics. Is DC evil for sticking to its contract just because its investment worked out to its advantage.

I don't feel bad when I make a profit on an investment, and I don't consider sharing that profit with the person I bought the investment from, either, unless it was agreed upon in the first place. When I've taken losses on investments, I've never tried to go back to the person I bought the investment from and asked for a refund. That's not how it works.

DC paid Moore for his work, including royalties. DC footed the bill for printing, marketing and distributing the project. DC paid Gibbons for his art and all the others who collaborated on the book. While Moore and Gibbon's talents and abilities were crucial to the success of the project, DC's investment and risk in the Watchmen was far greater. If the book had not sold well, Moore still would have gotten paid what his contract stipulated.

Continuing the stories of characters created for them is what DC comics and all comics publishing companies do. It's not about art. It's about making money. DC has shown an incredible amount of deference to Moore over the years, much more than it has to any other creator it ever contracted for work and certainly more than Marvel has for creators as esteemed as Jack Kirby.

Doing business is a risky prospect, and business partners will protect their interests as much as possible, just as business partners will attempt to negotiate the best deal their leverage can achieve. Moore's deal for Watchmen probably seemed to be a sweetheart to him when he signed it. He had more leverage than perhaps anyone in the business at the time other than maybe Miller or possibly Byrne as a writer/artist. But the entity with the money is always going to hold the upper hand in such negotiations, or they won't put their money behind it.

Should comic fans hate or dislike Bob Kane or boycott Batman because Kane was wise enough to cut a better deal for himself when he signed Batman away to DC than Siegel and Shuster did for Superman?

Obviously, people should boycott or buy whatever they want for whatever reason they want. We all work for our money and have the right to spend it or not on whatever legal items we want. It's a free country.

But I don't see DC attempting to cash in on the Watchmen any more wrong or evil or less noble than it trying to cash in on Superman, Johna Hex, Sugar and Spike or Batman.

And, I'm not going to join a pity party for Moore just because I really liked those Swamp Thing stories he wrote so many years ago.

The idea of additional stories written about the characters destroying the integrity of Moore and Gibbons' work is just silly. Their work on Watchmen will always be there as long as it remains popular enough to stay in print and will be revered as the original work, even if the work of other creators on the characters somehow surpasses his.

[Brazoo]

I don't think Alan Moore is playing a martyr at all. He's on record as saying:

"Fair enough,' [...] 'You have managed to successfully swindle me, and so I will never work for you again."

...and he hasn't.

Also:

In 2010, Moore told Wired that DC offered him the rights to Watchmen back earlier that week, if he would agree to prequel and sequel projects. Moore said that "if they said that 10 years ago, when I asked them for that, then yeah it might have worked ... But these days I don't want Watchmen back. Certainly, I don't want it back under those kinds of terms."

Here's a link to the article: Alan Moore | Underwire | Wired.com

I think that's pretty reasonable. He's not interested.

Having said that, Watchmen projects without Alan Moore seems like professionally done fan fiction - but nearly all DC and Marvel comic characters feel that way to me in one way or another.

[The Toyroom]

Terry, no disrespect to you either...I totally dig what you're saying about Alan Moore, his relationship with DC and the contract he signed regarding "Watchmen"...

My issue isn't to defend Moore so much...considering the fact that although he has written many classic stories, I've thought of him as a pompous blowhard for quite some time. My gripe is more with the fact that DC could have done this years ago if they (management) had seen fit. And it would have made more sense to make money off of the success of "Watchmen" when it was first printed. But it never happened under the stewardship of Jennette Kahn, Dick Giordano, Paul Levitz, whoever was in charge at the time.

The New DC (like Marvel) seems more interested in creating events to generate some ink in the papers, whether or not they have a good story to back it up. Like the "New 52" or the "Death" of Captain America, etc.

You can't even say they are trying to cash in on the "Watchmen" movie which would have made more sense at the time, even though it wasn't a big blockbuster at the end of the day.

But it seems now more than ever that they need to constantly generate publicity to cover the fact that the print side of the comic book industry is drying up. Instead of telling GOOD stories to get the jaded and disenchanted (like myself) back in the stores.

Now these may very well turn out to be good stories after all...the pedigree of the writers and artists is there. But I think even if all of those names hadn't signed up for this DC still would have found a way even if Rob Leifeld and Judd Winick were those tapped to be on "The Comedian" for example. They were going to do this regardless of the fact if they had a good story or not.

The other thing I take issue with is the number of series and the number of issues of each series...The stands are going to be flooded with "Watchmen" product for up to 6 months (unless they are sell-outs). I expect some of these to wind up in the dollar bins at some point.

Again, I'm sure the writers and artists involved will do their best to tell a good story but in the end I don't think it's a story that needed to be told. Moore and Gibbons did a good job setting things up and giving you enough knowledge of the characters' backgrounds to get the story rolling. No more was needed because by the very nature of the series it didn't make sense to become too attached to them. They were expendable.

Even though it's the world of comic books and reboots/revamps/revisions are now status quo I just think certain works don't need to be revisited. For me "Watchmen" is one. "The Killing Joke" is another that although it wasn't intended to be in continuity originally, it ended up being so and now even that he been undone, diminishing the impact of the original. Miller's "The Dark Night Returns" is another that should never have had a sequel 'cause it sucked.

I dunno, maybe I'm getting too old for the funny books

[CrimsonGhost]

I really would love it if no one bought any.