Amazon Vehicles Beauty Return your textbook rentals STEM nav_sap_plcc_ascpsc Starting at $39.99 Wickedly Prime Handmade Wedding Shop Home Gift Guide Father's Day Gifts Home Gift Guide Shop Popular Services americangods americangods americangods  Introducing Echo Show All-New Fire 7, starting at $49.99 Kindle Oasis Trade it in. Fund the next. Spring Savings Event on Amazon.com toystl17_gno
Customer Discussions > Comics forum

Watchmen 2 !?!?


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 51-75 of 79 posts in this discussion
Posted on Dec 16, 2011, 2:06:48 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Dec 16, 2011, 3:46:33 AM PST
And I don't see what's not accurate about the readership breakdown TODAY being adults, young adults, teens and little kids (in order of greatest percentage first). The last two may be statistically insignificant today, as statistically insignificant as college age readers were in the 1960s. I will grant you that in raw numbers there were probably more college age readers in the 1960s than there are kids today, but that's only because the kid audience was so overwhelmingly huge in the 1960s.

I also don't think that words like "hogwash" or "balderdash" (or even "poppycock" or "fiddlesticks") equate to calling someone a "troll"...

Posted on Dec 16, 2011, 2:16:33 AM PST
[Deleted by the author on Dec 16, 2011, 2:16:53 AM PST]

Posted on Dec 16, 2011, 3:18:14 PM PST
Very astute, Dennis... I agree with the gist of what you say, but I must point out that Zap actually sold quite well. They were part and parcel of the 60s "Hippie" culture, which was at it's absolute height in the late 60s. This is what I was referring to that Grant seems to not understand... this was a totally new audience that was cultivated, exclusively adult that was not part of the nostalgia-fueled fandom that the mainstream had. They were not predisposed to buy comics.

One of the points Grant never, ever confronts is the actual content of the mainstream comics... I think you hit the nail on the head as far as quotes go. Lee and Schwartz have everything to gain by saying they were trendsetters who were cultivating an adult audience, but the product says differently... comparing something like, say, Justin Green's "Binky Brown meets the Holy Virgin Mary" with something like "Avengers" and tell me who was pursuing an adult audience! How would it sound if the said editors were completely honest and said "We were putting out stuff for kids"? Kane, an artist who worked for both companies, has always told it like it was... he never had any illusions about adults reading comics, and said so frequently. Matter of fact, in his massive CJ interview in the mid-90s, his frustration with never really being allowed to work on adult material (not even at underground level, simply pulp-related stuff) is pretty visible...

Good point, also, about DC and Marvel shooting themselves in the foot by focusing on fandom instead of kids...

@Grant: Just wanted to make one point: When you say "...so you say all interviews are less than relevant and then you back that up by citing an interview? LOL. Wow, just....wow. Well, I guess that makes it easy to feel validated when someone uses actual reported facts to dispute a point that has no valid sources to support it such as the case with Diamond.", your lack of understanding is pretty evident... Dennis never once said "...all interviews are less than relevant...", he said what Lee an Schwartz are SPECIFICALLY speaking of can only be proven by sales records, demographics, etc... and he's right.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 16, 2011, 8:00:10 PM PST
Grant says:
re: "I also don't think that words like "hogwash" or "balderdash" (or even "poppycock" or "fiddlesticks") equate to calling someone a "troll"..."

Well, that is indeed what you "think" and not something that you "know". I happen to disagree. But then it's all subjective isn't it? For example, I believe myself to be fully within the bounds of decorum by saying that someone who would say "I believe what this guy says because it supports my point but I don't believe what that same guy says because it supports a point that I disagree with" is a complete moron with the conversation and debating skills of a 4th grader with no working knowledge of the topic at hand. I also believe that someone who disputes a cited, on the record source that they themselves ask for while giving none in return to support their counter point is a hypocrite and a troll of the worst order.

But I'm sure that you would disagree with that point of view. However, the fact that you might disagree is even less relevant to me than all of the on the record comments and sources that you and Diamond choose to ignore (while believing comments that you "think" certain people "alluded" to without citing any sources).

Hopefully that explains my position and explains why I choose not to engage with either you or Diamond on the subject any further. Nothing personal of course. Life is just too short to discuss comic history with people who ignore that history and make up their own as they go and call it fact. Not that that is something unheard of on the internet. It's quite common. It's just not the type of conversation that I personally am interested in.

So good luck with all that. It's been fun. Cheers.

Posted on Dec 16, 2011, 8:47:35 PM PST
@ Dennis: Translation- he doesn't like being proven wrong.

Posted on Dec 16, 2011, 9:45:27 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Dec 16, 2011, 11:26:10 PM PST
@ Grant - What I disagree with are people who are disagreeable. Who are so bound up in their opinions that they view any discussion as a "debate" (i.e. it's all about "winning" by trying to slap the other guy down as hard as possible). Who focus on some one remark and take it out of context and try to confabulate it to ridiculous distortions, to the exclusion of the general thrust of what someone's trying to say. Because it's not about finding the common ground or actually listening to the other guy, it's about bludgeoning him over the head with the righteousness of your own opinion. Who cannot separate themselves from a discussion so that everything becomes personal. Who identify anyone whose viewpoint isn't in perfect alignment with theirs as "the enemy", and then label everything they say as nonsensical. Who think acrimony, rudeness and name-calling are fair tactics to "prove" their points. Yeah, "nothing personal" of course. Your idea of "fun" and mine differ greatly.

Posted on Feb 4, 2012, 5:57:28 AM PST
I will probably get the #1 issues. Beyond that, they'd have to be really good for me to buy any more.

Posted on Jun 12, 2012, 6:07:24 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jun 12, 2012, 6:08:11 AM PDT
Minutemen #1: Nothing too exciting, nothing too controversial. Mostly consists of a couple pages on each of the characters before they join together as the Minutemen. Verdict: Too early to tell.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 12, 2012, 10:42:38 AM PDT
Art Franklin says:
"Minutemen #1: Nothing too exciting, nothing too controversial."

This is my bias towards the Watchmen prequels. I bet that they will be bland. I bet that they will attempt to reference Moore's work while adriotly avoiding characters that smoke except for the Comedian, Dr. Manhattan's blue skyscraper, rape, racism, deaths of pregnant people, etc. etc.

There will be attempts at creating shock value, but I predict they will lean towards violence rather than sex, and the tone of each story will be less grounded in a particular era than expected.

Posted on Jun 16, 2012, 8:11:59 AM PDT
Silk Spectre #1: mostly a rehash of what we already know. But she gets a kinda-sorta boyfriend in high school. Verdict: Too early to tell.

Comedian #1 ought to be interesting. It OUGHT to be. Whether it is or not, well, tune in next week.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 17, 2012, 12:09:58 AM PDT
Sean Hansen says:
The big deal would be that Moore and Gibbons are getting screwed by DC, and were screwed by DC with how their contract was carried out.

Watchmen wasn't work for hire, and it's important to remember that. Also: Lucas and Spielberg worked on Temple of Doom and the Crystal Skull sequel. Moore and Gibbons involvement on "Before Watchmen" is that they created the characters.

Posted on Jun 23, 2012, 6:43:22 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jun 23, 2012, 6:44:19 AM PDT
Comedian #1: He kills one famous person (most likely, it's slightly vague), and doesn't kill a different famous person (he has a solid alibi). So, kind of interesting. He comes off as too nice, though. This is the Comedian we're talking about, here!

Although I said above "Beyond that, they'd have to be really good for me to buy any more," in reality, I'll probably be buying the #2's, unless any of the remaining #1's are really bad. So far, they've all contained within them the promise that something interesting might happen in future issues.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 24, 2012, 8:09:03 AM PDT
Cara Cakes says:
One of his brothers (the one he created his early comics with!) still lives at home and is basically an invalid...the other is an agoraphobe and does things like (the Indian yogic practice of) sitting on nails to keep from going insane. His mother barely leaves the house. Saying he's the most capitalist sell-out in his family serves no purpose whatsoever. It's like saying "penguin A is the most fascist of penguin group C." And, R. Crumb created most of his early comics (by early I mean the first 8-10 years!) the way a true writer writes...not because he wanted to, but because he had to. Just because you're getting out your demons/trying to subvert the public and need enough money to keep doing it, doesn't mean you're making a "grab for money." Same deal with (movie director) David Lynch. He did "Elephant Man" and "Dune" to make enough money so that he could do only the films that he wanted for the rest of his life. His other films are clearly not grabs for money, and he even threw enough art into those two films to pretty much ruin their Hollywood/blockbuster value. Not all art is for money; look up concepts like folk art and "brut art" (art by outsiders that was never meant for publication) for some especially good examples. :)

Posted on Jul 5, 2012, 2:08:30 PM PDT
Night Owl #1 : not too bad
Ozymandias #1 : not too bad
(I may be more informative tomorrow)

So far, on the one hand, there's nothing here that provokes a "oh my God, how could they do that?" response (like the Brian Herbert/KJA Dune books do) but on the other hand, I can't help thinking "Is this trip really necessary?"

Posted on Jul 7, 2012, 12:01:57 PM PDT
I guess I am no purist in this regard, but if you take a movie with really well done casting, really good effects and frankly overall a good movie, then I would like to see more of it, if they retain the same cast.
That's how I am, make 8 more super mario brothers if the gameplay is the same.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 7, 2012, 12:03:05 PM PDT
there copuld have been more in depth stories about maus though.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 7, 2012, 12:03:41 PM PDT
cara, the shut in brother killed himself.

Posted on Aug 12, 2012, 11:21:52 AM PDT
The #2 issues are getting more interesting and more "mature."

In reply to an earlier post on Aug 13, 2012, 2:00:17 PM PDT
Art Franklin says:
Hi Cara, you said "Saying he's the most capitalist sell-out in his family serves no purpose whatsoever."

This is untrue. I think it was clear to most that I was joking, and humor serves a purpose. I was also poking some friendly fun at gRant, because there is a large difference between selling product and selling out.

Posted on Aug 16, 2012, 5:53:55 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Aug 16, 2012, 5:59:35 AM PDT
S. Kelly says:
I've never read Watchmen. It's on my list for this summer. I know that Before Watchmen is not great from what everyone has been saying and I almost feel like a heretic asking this question but is it possible that I would enjoy Before Watchmen more since I have no basis in the original? Pretty subjective question I know...but I was thinking of holding off on Watchmen to read "Before" before.

In reply to an earlier post on Aug 17, 2012, 8:08:13 AM PDT
Before Watchemen would probably be more enjoyable if you don't read Watchmen first, yes.

Posted on Aug 17, 2012, 8:15:58 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Aug 17, 2012, 8:17:12 AM PDT
Rorschach #1: this is the first one that's really disappointed me, probably because this is the one I really wanted to see kick butt. The art's good - a grungy 3-D look - looking at the world through Rorshach's eyes, as it were, but Rorschach's dialogue is just off. His character doesn't feel right Still, I'll probably get #2 anyway.

Now, over in Night Owl, Rorschach is more jokey, but I believe that story takes place before the kidnapper case, so Rorschach there is really just "Walter Kovacs pretending to be Rorscach." Whereas in his own book, the action is in 1977 (pre-Keene act or post-Keene act? Not sure), so he should definitely "be" Rorschach. And he is more brutal and less jokey, but still, he doesn't sound or act quite right.

Posted on Sep 9, 2012, 8:12:51 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Oct 20, 2012, 12:09:58 PM PDT
My preferences so far-

Better:
1. Minutemen
2. Silk Spectre
OK:
3. Ozymandias
4. Doctor Manhattan
5. Nite Owl
6. The Comedian
Not as good:
7. Rorschach

Minutemen and Silk Spectre have an unfair advantage since there are 3 issues out. Doctor Manhattan and Rorschach are at a disadvantage of only having 1 issue out.

*Edited to spell Rorschach correctly (I'm so embarrassed.)

Posted on Sep 16, 2012, 3:30:05 PM PDT
Comedian #3 The Comedian almost kinda sorta acts like the Comedian in this one, for once.

Posted on Oct 20, 2012, 12:07:08 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Oct 20, 2012, 12:07:39 PM PDT
Rorschach # 2 - a slight improvement over the first one, but Rorschach still doesn't feel right.

Minutemen # 4 - still one of the best of the Before Watchmen series, but none of these comics have quite gotten the hang of the Comedian. It's tough. How do you make him simultaneously a bastid and sympathetic?
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


Recent discussions in the Comics forum (550 discussions)

 

This discussion

Discussion in:  Comics forum
Participants:  18
Total posts:  79
Initial post:  Dec 6, 2011
Latest post:  Dec 22, 2012

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.