Board Logo
« WATCHMEN »

Welcome Guest. Please Login or Register.
Nov 20th, 2017, 12:20pm



« Previous Topic | Next Topic »
Pages: 1 2  Notify Send Topic Print
 veryhotthread  Author  Topic: WATCHMEN  (Read 5012 times)
Motown Marvel

ImageImageImageImageImage


member is offline

Avatar



AIM
PM

Gender: Male
Posts: 272
xx Re: WATCHMEN
« Reply #15 on: Aug 4th, 2005, 02:35am »

yeah, the incredibles totally stole from watchmen, i've always thought that (i didnt think the movie was even that great...totally over rated). the funny thing is, after the ioncredibles came out, everyone is talking about this revelation of superheroes leading real lives, and how much more amazing the story is because of it, and how unique it is, blah blah blah...and ilm like, 'dude, this isnt anything new, this has been happening in comics since 1986!' yet still, comics get no respect.
User IP Logged

TheMidnighter

ImageImageImageImageImage


member is offline

Avatar




Homepage PM

Gender: Male
Posts: 1227
xx Re: WATCHMEN
« Reply #16 on: Aug 4th, 2005, 04:06am »

Hmm, people just don't know about comics.

I'm getting off-topic here, but if we've got such amazing stories like Watchmen, The Invisibles, Sandman, The Dark Knight Returns, Sin City, Astro City, Planetary, From Hell, Promethea and tons, tons more and a big percentage of the world doesn't even know about it, don't you think the companies are to blame? I do not think it's solely the 'pigheadedness of people' that is the issue here -- companies need to bring comics to the people - you used to be able to buy them everywhere (well, in the US of A, at least) - but, instead, they only advertise for people that already collect them!

Argh.
*Rantmode OFF*
User IP Logged

"One among you will shortly perish."

My free music
CapedCrusaderJRK

ImageImageImageImageImage


member is offline

Avatar




PM

Gender: Male
Posts: 215
xx Re: WATCHMEN
« Reply #17 on: Aug 17th, 2005, 10:21pm »

Indeed.

By the way, I'm thinking of making a screenplay adaptation of Watchmen.

You see, I was reading it during our SSR time in school, and I have this in my Creative Writing class. My teacher told me that comics aren't allowed. "No funny-books," he said.

Now, I'm thinking, if an assingment works in that favor, I'm going to prove him wrong with it.

I'm thinking of writing it in a mini-series style, something like Band of Brothers on HBO or something. Depending if there's less time allotted for them, I'd have to add scenes (and I have a few ideas on those, including someone visiting Rorshach in prison that might be his actual father), but I'd try to keep them in the sprit of the book.

Does that sound good to you guys?
User IP Logged

CapedCrusaderJRK, kicking ass and taking names since 1988.
TheMidnighter

ImageImageImageImageImage


member is offline

Avatar




Homepage PM

Gender: Male
Posts: 1227
xx sounds okay, yeah sure
« Reply #18 on: Sep 5th, 2005, 09:24am »

Hey, you know, almost every concept sounds great to me. It's the way it's actually written that decides if I will like it or not.

Show us your magic, CC Rider!
User IP Logged

"One among you will shortly perish."

My free music
CapedCrusaderJRK

ImageImageImageImageImage


member is offline

Avatar




PM

Gender: Male
Posts: 215
xx Re: sounds okay, yeah sure
« Reply #19 on: Sep 5th, 2005, 10:35pm »

on Sep 5th, 2005, 09:24am, TheMidnighter wrote:
Hey, you know, almost every concept sounds great to me. It's the way it's actually written that decides if I will like it or not.

Show us your magic, CC Rider!


I showed a little of my magic on the Other Batman board with a script called Arkham Asylum, check it out!
User IP Logged

CapedCrusaderJRK, kicking ass and taking names since 1988.
TheMidnighter

ImageImageImageImageImage


member is offline

Avatar




Homepage PM

Gender: Male
Posts: 1227
xx Re: WATCHMEN
« Reply #20 on: Dec 29th, 2005, 8:55pm »

[SPOILERS, BLAME YOURSELF IF YOU CANNOT ENJOY ONE OF THE BEST STORIES IN THE WORLD AFTER READING THIS]

Well, that should be clear, methinks.


Was it snipe who made a link between Jezus and Doc Manhattan? Very interesting take, however I think we could even make a connection to an even higher individual: God.

First of all, we have the seemingly limitless power Doc Manhattan has to his disposal. Making second entities of himself and foreseeing the future (although not after Veidt used the Tachyons) are but examples.
Second we have the growing feeling of distance between Doc and humanity. The Comedian exposes it when the Vietnam War is won and he guns down the Vietnamese woman - Doc could've easily intervened, but did not because he's growing out of touch ("God, help us all"). This was not always the case, as we see in chapter 4 when we see Jon Osterman's lifestory. Jon used to be just a regular person like anyone could be on this world. After the incidentwhich turned Jon into Doctor Manhattan, Doc became more and more indifferent towards humanity. Perhaps due to increasing knowledge about the mechanisms from the unvierse (atoms, stars), getting adjusted to his new scope of sensations and thereby losing touch with the important stuff of the ordinairy person, the man he was before the accident?
It looks to me as if Doc Manhattan becoming more like a god is not only apparant in the way he reacts towards humanity, but also in his clothing. Doc puts on less and less clothing until he's fully naked. Is this symbolic? Probably, but I cannot really grasp what it stands for in a particular way, but I think it has to do with Jon becoming more and more like a diety. (Greek Gods, for example, were always pictured as living naked.)
There's also the fact that chapter 3, the chapter where Doc leaves the Earth for Mars, has the title 'The Judge of All the Earth' (Genesis Chapter 18, verse 25: 'Shall not the Judge of All the Earth do right?'), making the Judge of the Earth the theme of this chapter. This chapter deals with the Doc deciding to leave the Earth to contemplate how to react to it, thus a godlike create how to act (whether or not this is 'right', must be seen).
I never found anyone picking this out, but at the ending, when Veidt and Doc had their little chat about the way everything ended, Veidt asks if Doc regained interest in human life, to which the Doc replies "yes I have, I think perhaps I'll create some". Doc Manhattan leaves the Earth saying "Nothing ever ends". To me, it's really plausible that we assume that Doc Manhattan did not leave for another place, but rather another time and then in the past. The Doc said, after all, that he would create some human life, which only exists on the planet Earth. The statement that nothing ever ends also speaks for this option a lot.
I've always wondered what could be the symbolism within the scene where Doc Manhattan disappeares whilst standing in the orrery. Whilst typing this, I think I've finally found it: it's the Big Bang. I think we can safely assume that Doc Manhattan wasn't only going to create human life, but the entire universe.

User Image

I had a lot more stuff I found interesting, but I seem to have forgotten it...
« Last Edit: Dec 29th, 2005, 8:57pm by TheMidnighter » User IP Logged

"One among you will shortly perish."

My free music
TheMidnighter

ImageImageImageImageImage


member is offline

Avatar




Homepage PM

Gender: Male
Posts: 1227
xx Re: WATCHMEN
« Reply #21 on: Aug 14th, 2006, 11:05pm »

Linked with the above Big Bang theory, I also would like to note that Doc calls the universe a 'clock without a craftsman' (I'm paraphrasing). If Doc Manhattan were to travel back in time and create the world, knowing Alan Moore, it's not coincidental that Jon Osterman was learning to be a clockmaker in his early years, which comes in very handy, apparantly.
User IP Logged

"One among you will shortly perish."

My free music
larryfilmmaker

ImageImageImageImageImage


member is offline

Avatar




PM


Posts: 3
xx Re: WATCHMEN
« Reply #22 on: Sep 6th, 2006, 04:54am »

"Watchmen" has had an effect on so many movies and stories it's insane. In my opinion, the top 3 graphic novels are, in order:

1) Kingdom Come
2) Watchmen
3) everything else
User IP Logged

Nick

ImageImageImageImageImage


member is offline

Avatar




PM

Gender: Male
Posts: 754
xx Re: WATCHMEN
« Reply #23 on: Feb 6th, 2012, 12:48pm »

I'm guessing by now everybody has read the news about the Before Watchmen mini-series that we are getting soon.

Now I am by no means a Watchmen purist, it's a great book, but I personally think it is vastly overated. There are many other works by Alan Moore that I greatly prefer. Nonetheless, to me this is just screaming of desperation.

While we have known of DC's intention to do this for years, announcing it now really cements the fact that DC are going down the toilet, at an astonishing rate. It's almost ironic that DC celebrate their 75th Anniversary while in one of their greatest periods for creative output in quite some time. And after all the celebrations are over they decend into senility within months. First we have to endure the painful and incompetent desperation of the Reboot, now we have DC doing the same treatment to Watchmen! Really?!

Again, I would no way call Watchmen a favourite of mine. It is, however, one of those books that is complete in of itself. It does not need more, in fact to create more is only to tarnish the original. It is a perfect self contained entity, it is not a franchise.

I have heard a lot of arguments claiming this is no different to Batman or Superman being ongoing long after their original creators have stoppped. But I firmly believe this is not the case. Batman and Superman and all the others were created as ongoing stories. They were made up as they went along. There was no intention at their inception to tell a defined story with a beginning, an end, and a journey.

Watchmen was created with the purpose of telling a defined, tightly woven story, with a clever and poetic ending. There is no more to tell. End of story. Period.
User IP Logged

snipe
Administrator
ImageImageImageImageImage


member is offline

Avatar

Master Dick


Homepage PM

Gender: Male
Posts: 1956
xx Re: WATCHMEN
« Reply #24 on: Feb 6th, 2012, 3:29pm »

on Feb 6th, 2012, 12:48pm, Nick wrote:
Again, I would no way call Watchmen a favourite of mine. It is, however, one of those books that is complete in of itself. It does not need more, in fact to create more is only to tarnish the original. It is a perfect self contained entity, it is not a franchise.

I have heard a lot of arguments claiming this is no different to Batman or Superman being ongoing long after their original creators have stoppped. But I firmly believe this is not the case. Batman and Superman and all the others were created as ongoing stories. They were made up as they went along. There was no intention at their inception to tell a defined story with a beginning, an end, and a journey.

Watchmen was created with the purpose of telling a defined, tightly woven story, with a clever and poetic ending. There is no more to tell. End of story. Period.


Just like all the characters Moore used in League of Extraordinary Gentlemen? The way they were in works that were complete and not a franchise?
The man needs to get over himself. He's made a career out of using other peoples' characters (League, Lost Girls, Swamp Thing, Green Lantern, etc), but he expects his characters to be sacred?
I'm going to read the shit out of the Darwyn Cooke books, but I doubt I bother with the others.
« Last Edit: Feb 6th, 2012, 3:29pm by snipe » User IP Logged

Will

ImageImageImageImageImage


member is offline

Avatar




PM

Gender: Male
Posts: 706
xx Re: WATCHMEN
« Reply #25 on: Feb 7th, 2012, 02:48am »

So far as his work on Watchman I can see his point.

Though it's also his mistake; Warner/DC own the property, and can do what they want with it. The irony of this is that the material they own is thematically about power-structure and inevitability. Art imitates life, life then buys the film rights.

Who Watches the Watchmen? It's all so predictable that it's like...clockwork. And in DC's case, manufactured.

It's an example of what's wrong, not necessarily in this case, so far as timeline, but retroactively in regards to law: the copyright standards, pushed by big corporations to retain "rights" over characters like Batman, have become something Draconian. Stated or unstated, the goal and likely outcome is that these things will now never be in the public domain thanks to the corruption wrought by a conflation of amoral politicians and the cheap prices they can be bought for (I got you, babe).

What Moore did with characters in League was draw upon cultural standards that are perpetuated by their existence in the public domain. What DC does is take the work of a creator -- one well rewarded, no question -- who deconstructed a medium (and from that made a statement of artistic merit about that same maligned-medium) and invert it back to nothing other than a corporate-driven assembly line of "ownership". They did little other than publish this material, and yet they now will own it, perhaps, for as long as it exists.

That's very different from what Moore has done with characters and work that are now cultural benchmarks, without corporate ownership.

The biggest crime, if one wants to argue it, is that Moore has less control over his creations than this corporation. He signed his rights away, true. No arguing against that. But the very nature of the system is one where most mainstream pieces of art become little more than a corporate logo. It's law, but on a long enough timeline it's anything but just.

Over time this might even expand into a danger for a site like this, unfortunately. The copyright holders want all control over content, whether they actually created any of it or not.

Watchmen came into existence as psychological complication -- even pathologizing -- of superhero templates, along with the central question of what it means to be men who become false gods. In that sense, Moore stole freely (Promethean?) to tell an insular story about an industry based around perpetuated serialisation. In so doing, he gave the medium a gravity it didn't have before, showing the postmodern style-as-substance of intertextual and metatextual analysis (the story, through these values, comments upon broader storytelling and deconstructs itself, like the innards of a clock, even as a dramatic narrative pace is unfolding: I think it's complicated arguments on linear and non-linear time are also pointers on this, or what it is to create).

What DC is doing is just crass. I seriously doubt there are big ideas and heavy questions about the medium being pushed -- not by people who think the biggest issue is getting Barbara Gordon back in a Batgirl outfit -- which means that they're simply defiling what Watchmen was about. At least as art.

That's the dichotomy, whether Hegelian or simply reductive: corporate versus artistic rights, and means. There's nothing illegal about what Warner/DC are doing, and if it was, on a common enough scale, they'd just buy the right people and change the laws anyway.

I don't think Moore is a saint. Or even more than a hypocrite, in some ways. But I do think that, while he'[s no starving artist (in the sense of caring only about his art, and not about monetary recompense), he is at least an artist. He's made money, but he's done so largely by trying to craft personal stories that feature adult ideas and tonal value, expanding the larger reach or worth of an industry that was previously seen as the central argument for recycling plants.

The intent on the other side? Nostalgia for its own sake, perhaps as the central and sad artistic purpose, matched to a bunch of recycled characters and content from the childhoods of guys in their forties or fifties.

All that said, in a way, the problem leads back to him. But that doesn't change the fact that the work itself only exists because of him.
« Last Edit: Feb 9th, 2012, 05:00am by Will » User IP Logged

TheMidnighter

ImageImageImageImageImage


member is offline

Avatar




Homepage PM

Gender: Male
Posts: 1227
xx Re: WATCHMEN
« Reply #26 on: Feb 12th, 2012, 06:15am »

Haha, looking up information on Before Watchmen, I find snipe's exact points here and Will's "draconian contracts" on another page.

I will see how this plays out. The creators are no pushover but I like Watchmen as is quite a lot. I will read some spoiler free reviews when the time comes and decide if I will get the imminent TPB based on those and my gut feeling at the time.

That being said, I think the biggest difference to me in this whole point is that Alan Moore needed to use superheroes to create. The characters Moore used, were chosen by the writer who is a creator and wants to produce a work of art. Before Watchmen is instigated not by the creative talent involved but by DC, who want to make money foremost and are happy if the work turns out good. I still think Darwyn Cooke will produce some terrific stuff but that does not detract from the fact that Before Watchmen is a financial move riding on Moore and Gibbons' classic whilst Watchmen -- despite being based on existing characters -- was a completely unique tale and had a unique message.
« Last Edit: Feb 12th, 2012, 06:20am by TheMidnighter » User IP Logged

"One among you will shortly perish."

My free music
Pages: 1 2  Notify Send Topic Print
« Previous Topic | Next Topic »

Donate $6.99 for 50,000 Ad-Free Pageviews!

| Conforums Support |

This forum powered for FREE by Conforums ©
Sign up for your own Free Message Board today!
Terms of Service | Privacy Policy | Conforums Support | Parental Controls