# Watchmen Prequel: Not Sure If Want



## Hemi-Powered Drone (Feb 24, 2012)

...And it won't have Alan Moore or David Gibbons.









> This summer, DC Entertainment will publish all-new stories expanding on the acclaimed WATCHMEN universe. As highly anticipated as they are controversial, the seven inter-connected prequel mini-series will build on the foundation of the original WATCHMEN, the bestselling graphic novel of all time. BEFORE WATCHMEN will be the collective banner for all seven titles, from DC Comics.
> &#8220;It&#8217;s our responsibility as publishers to find new ways to keep all of our characters relevant,&#8221; said DC Entertainment Co-Publishers Dan DiDio and Jim Lee. &#8220;After twenty five years, the Watchmen are classic characters whose time has come for new stories to be told. We sought out the best writers and artists in the industry to build on the complex mythology of the original.&#8221;
> Stepping up to the challenge is a group of the comic book industry&#8217;s most iconoclastic writers and artists &#8211; including Brian Azzarello (100 BULLETS), Lee Bermejo (JOKER), Amanda Conner (POWER GIRL), Darwyn Cooke (JUSTICE LEAGUE: NEW FRONTIER), John Higgins (WATCHMEN), Adam Hughes (CATWOMAN), J.G. Jones (FINAL CRISIS), Andy Kubert (FLASHPOINT), Joe Kubert (SGT. ROCK), Jae Lee (BATMAN: JEKYLL AND HYDE), J. Michael Straczynski (SUPERMAN: EARTH ONE) and Len Wein (SWAMP THING).
> BEFORE WATCHMEN includes:
> ...


DC Universe: The Source » Blog Archive » DC ENTERTAINMENT OFFICIALLY ANNOUNCES

The lack of the two creators is disconcerting, Watchmen is a classic and I'm not sure that this would be the best. Probably just capitalizing on the attention it got from that movie not to long ago. I'll read it, I loved the Watchmen, and I'll be happy if it can even get a little close to the original quality wise.


----------



## Sonicassaultphil (Feb 24, 2012)

Lame!!! I am pretty sure whatever they do will not live up to anything of the original at all


----------



## Explorer (Feb 24, 2012)

(*cough* nerd alert *cough*)

Alan Moore is upset for various reasons. When he submitted the project to DC, they didn't want him killing off (or rendering useless) the Charleton characters they had just bought, so he agreed to come up with new characters. The agreement also said that if DC took "Watchmen" off the market, the rights would revert to him and Gibbons. This was the same agreement about which both Moore and Gibbons have said DC paid them "a substantial amount of money" to buy those rights from them. They also receive 8% of the earnings.

And it's been in continuous publication ever since, and they're still getting the cash.

Moore continually tosses out negative comments about DC just taking the properties, conveniently forgetting his comments about being paid for it, and also his agreeing to sell those rights. It's bizarre, but it's too bad DC never tried to work something out and that Moore was never offered a chance to get the rights back.

Oh, wait. He was.

According to Moore in 2010, they would have gotten back the rights if they had agreed to a prequel and sequel project. Not good enough for Moore, who doesn't want to be involved at all due to his being upset at having sold the rights before. (???)

Gibbons, in contrast, has given the new project his blessing.


----------



## technomancer (Feb 24, 2012)

I love Moore's work, but he really does seem like he just wants to be artsy and edgey and gets pissed when anything of his attains mainstream success ala Watchmen. While I would have loved to see what he'd do with this, I've gotta' say I'm not going to ignore it just because he's not on board. When they put out a collected graphic novel I'll probably grab it and read it.


----------



## Hemi-Powered Drone (Feb 24, 2012)

technomancer said:


> I love Moore's work, but he really does seem like he just wants to be artsy and edgey and gets pissed when anything of his attains mainstream success ala Watchmen. While I would have loved to see what he'd do with this, I've gotta' say I'm not going to ignore it just because he's not on board. When they put out a collected graphic novel I'll probably grab it and read it.



I'm thinking the same thing. Moore always seemed like an odd guy, but sometimes he looked like he was trying to hard. There probably is some legitimate weirdness in him, but sometimes I think he's doing it on purpose.


----------



## technomancer (Feb 24, 2012)

dragonblade629 said:


> I'm thinking the same thing. Moore always seemed like an odd guy, but sometimes he looked like he was trying to hard. There probably is some legitimate weirdness in him, but sometimes I think he's doing it on purpose.



Oh Moore is definitely a weird guy, I just find it funny that he's pissed when his work obtains success outside of a cult following.


----------



## Explorer (Feb 24, 2012)

If Watchmen hadn't been a DC book, I don't think it would have made much of an impresssion. 

In fact, I don't think he's done much of note since Watchmen and Vendetta, and that's speaking as someone who likes Tom Strong and Top Ten. Now that comics have entered the Rust Age, and every comics group has a lot of the darkness originally found in 200AD, his schtick doesn't really stand out. 

Anyway, I don't think there's much chance of his repeating his previous mainstream success, so I'm sure he'll get his wish to avoid it....


----------



## Demiurge (Feb 25, 2012)

Seems dumb as hell.

One of the key, and I think most compelling, narrative conceits in the original is that the story plays-out after the Watchmen's heydey, and that aside from the little flashbacks offered, there was room for the imagination as to where they came from and even what they were like as a team. This series would seemingly destroy that element... hell, even tapping the Crimson Corsair, which was placed perfectly in the original narrative as a clipped-but-wholly-meaningful allegory regarding the main plot, just screams of the tonedeafness in the attempt to cash-in.


----------



## right_to_rage (Feb 25, 2012)

I think that Alan Moore should be involved if not only for the amount of insight in his story lines.


----------



## Spinedriver (Feb 25, 2012)

Honestly, I think it really depends more on who's writing & drawing the stories. Sometimes a different perspective can bring totally new aspects to light that the creator had never thought of. Look how Garth Ennis handled the Punisher. Look at all of the different writers who've taken up properties like Batman, Spider-Man, etc.. and turned them totally around after slumping sales. 

Alan Moore wrote the Killing Joke one-shot and permanently changed the canon of the character. I'd say there's a 60% chance the books will tank but I wouldn't write them off completely just because Moore isn't involved.


----------



## Demiurge (Feb 25, 2012)

Spinedriver said:


> Honestly, I think it really depends more on who's writing & drawing the stories. Sometimes a different perspective can bring totally new aspects to light that the creator had never thought of. Look how Garth Ennis handled the Punisher. Look at all of the different writers who've taken up properties like Batman, Spider-Man, etc.. and turned them totally around after slumping sales.
> 
> Alan Moore wrote the Killing Joke one-shot and permanently changed the canon of the character. I'd say there's a 60% chance the books will tank but I wouldn't write them off completely just because Moore isn't involved.



Certainly, if there is talent behind it, then there's a chance it will be good, but it just feels weird trying to expand-upon something that's essentially canon. Kind of like if a movie studio optioned Godfather 4 and got Scorsese, Hanks, and Freeman on the project- compelling, yes, but it would still be weird. (Okay, maybe a bad example as #3 shouldn't have been made, per some.)


----------



## Spinedriver (Feb 26, 2012)

Demiurge said:


> Certainly, if there is talent behind it, then there's a chance it will be good, but it just feels weird trying to expand-upon something that's essentially canon. Kind of like if a movie studio optioned Godfather 4 and got Scorsese, Hanks, and Freeman on the project- compelling, yes, but it would still be weird. (Okay, maybe a bad example as #3 shouldn't have been made, per some.)



I totally agree that going back to the well 20+ years after the fact is a bad idea, even more so because Watchmen was just a one-shot series not intending to be ongoing. The only explanation for it is because of the movie. I think the fact that they're trying it now is due to the whole "New 52" plan. With the exception of a few titles, for all intents & purposes, any DC canon prior to 2011 has been erased. It's almost like they took the characters and started a whole new company, so any/all books they have the rights to are subject to possible re-working whether the original creators like it or not. Even now, there's talk that several of the new 52 are going to be cancelled and replaced with other titles.


----------

