I'm sure it'll be interesting to see what they do with it, but it strikes me as kind of pointless. Watchmen was fine as a completely stand-alone work. It doesn't really need prequels.
That said, it'll be interesting to see if any of these writers buy into the nerd deification of Rorschach that seems quite common on the internet.
edited 1st Feb '12 4:04:58 PM by TheGloomer
They really did it. I can't believe it.
My problem: Watchmen had a point to make, and it did that through weaving every element together. Just about everything was important, especially the history of the characters. Everything that was needed to make that point was included. We knew everything we had to know.
I get the feeling that these miniseries, existing just to say "Hey, Rorschach did stuff before Watchmen happened," are gonna be utterly pointless.
edited 1st Feb '12 6:39:19 PM by Seamus
I've got two guns pointed west and a broken compass.I must say I know these comics will be good. Unnecessary, but really good. Just look at the talent working on it. They're really top notch artists. A Minutemen prequel from Darwyn Cooke? Sweet mother of everything, YES. But... at the same time, kinda feel the Watchmen prequels are not what its needed. Its like... Watchmen told the world everything it must be said. And now, the prequels would be sort of a reconstruction of that. Some will be brutal, some will be old school, but I think that they deserve to be looked upon, because they'll be good. Unnecessary, but good.
Well, Alan, you have relied on ideas Lewis Carroll, H.G. Wells, Jules Verne and Bram Stoker had more than a century ago. Hypocrite much?
Alan Moore's a genius, but whenever his pride's involved, he starts spouting junk.
Is there something else we need to know about Superman and Batman after seventy years of publication?
edited 2nd Feb '12 10:14:57 AM by NapoleonDeCheese
Hey, maybe we'll get lucky and this little set of storylines will crash and burn. Maybe it's all part of some convoluted plan to spit on Watchmen and make people stop relying on its ideas!
![]()
There's a difference between characters who belong to one work, like Hamlet and these characters, and characters who those who belong to a ongoing mythology, like Robin Hood and Batman. Watchmen is one of the best examples of the former in this medium, no need for something to come along and ruin it.
And I know about R&G are Dead, but there are a lot of differences between that and this, not least of which is the fact that the former isn't focusing on Hamlet, this is going for the main characters.
As for why I singled out Manhattan (although this pretty much goes for Rorschach too), Watchmen mapped out not only a detailed characterisation but also showed us at least the basics of every significant event of his life.
Am I a good man or a bad man?Not convinced it helps Moore's case here. Pretty much all the characters he used in The League Of Extraordinary Gentlemen were as self contained in their own works and had as much 'need for expansion' or lack thereof as the Watchmen characters.
Really, the original is a great work, but no fictional work should ever be untouchable in the sense of not allowing for new views ever. And it's not like any new work will make the original disappear or diminish. This is only worshipping the sacred cow for the sake of worshipping a sacred cow.
Of the leads for the first book, Mina and The Invisible Man had already passed into being reused. Quatermaine was from a series of stories to start with, as was Nemo even if he was only in two. And Hyde is so changed from the novel I have a hard time seeing him as the main character. Anyway I'm not arguing for Moore's sake anyway, it doesn't matter if he's a hypocrite.
Your second paragraph doesn't really make much sense to me. This isn't a new intepretation of the text, it's a an attempt for a company to make money. The format they've done it in really does look like a calculated decision on the best way to make money. I'm not too sure it will work though, does anyone really want to read a Silk Spectre mini series?
Am I a good man or a bad man?![]()
![]()
I do :)
I basically agree with what many others have said so far. It'll be very cool to revisit these characters, but it does seem like a forced attempt to find an excuse to do so (even though it's probably the most valid way they could have done it).
I can only hope they don't destroy the characterization. If they do though, what the hell.
edited 3rd Feb '12 5:54:41 AM by DoctorDiabolical
Respect the Red Right Hand
Epic. I'll definitely be reading the Rorschach and Night Owl series. Besides, it's payback. Alan Moore has such a high-and-mighty attitude on his stuff, while he deliberately shat on someone else's universe before- it was Youngblood, but it was still a use of the cardinal sins of comic writing, retcons that are patronizing to the original material. If these are bad, it's just retribution. If they're good, perhaps I'll pretend these came first so I can discontinuity the ending of the Alan Moore run.
edited 3rd Feb '12 6:03:55 AM by Ronnie
Huh, I was wondering why my fan spelled so bad.
I don't think this is a great idea. Watchmen is a single, self-contained work created with the singular vision of Moore and Gibbons. Prequels just graft on unnecessary and distracting material that dilutes the original with conflicting ideas. (I haven't read The League Of Extraordinary Gentlemen, so can't comment on that).
And it's no good saying "But you can just ignore the prequels if they turn out to be crap." No I can't. If I read them, they'll be on my mind if I re-read Watchmen itself, and will be colouring my perceptions.
Sequels would have been preferable, as they at least wouldn't necessarily alter the portrayal of the characters.
(It's also worth noting that Watchmen is 12 issues long; this prequel will have 35 issues altogether. Even allowing for the fact that comics had more pages in the 80s, that's still 700 pages to Watchmen's 336 - over twice as long.)
Ukrainian Red CrossOne of the reasons that Moore had to invent a pantheon of new characters was that he couldn't take an existing set and kill them off or exile them to another galaxy since that effectively ends the franchise. A prequel is the only real option. However, we already know all the large brush strokes from the characters' pasts so it seems to me that any stories left to tell are inherently small in the grand scheme of the Watchmen universe.
Showing the Comedian battling Moloch and later knocking over Marxist republics could be mildly entertaining, as with Night Owl and Rorschach dealing with the gang problem, but the stories won't be particularly gripping because they are secondary and - as with all prequels - we basically know the outcome.
Watchmen was simply so popular, particularly in the wake of the movie, that milking the property was inevitible.
Whether you think you can, or you think you can't, you are probably right.I care as much about DC elaborating on the backstory of Watchmen's characters as I do George Lucas having elaborated on Anakin Skywalker's backstory. To put it another way, I find it completely pointless to explore in greater detail.
A sequel to the original work would, at least, promise truly new content and new ground to explore, but it would probably also be just as unwelcomed on my part, even if Moore and Gibbons were behind it. Without a single doubt, this is a case where less is much, much more.
DC just wants money, but I have no intentions of giving them my money for this.
edited 4th Feb '12 7:01:47 PM by SeanMurrayI

Seven prequel series written by various artists and writers.
I'm a bit skeptical. I'm sure it will be very good, they've got some good people working on it, but it obviously has some large shoes to fill. Definitely picking up Rorschach and Comedian though because fuck yeah Brian Azzerello.
edited 1st Feb '12 3:06:26 PM by rumetzen