POLL RESULTS: Has The "Before Watchmen" Controversy Affected Your Interest In The Pre

[smo5000]

It's obvious that it will sell well. Some collector's have been pre-ordering it just because of how much controversy it has...they arent even going to read it, just preserve it and put it on ebay when the time is right. The creative teams are good as well, which will help sell to true comic book readers. And then you have the post-movie crowd which love certain characters and want to know every tidbit about their past.

Personally, I'll read it down the line. All my other comics are keeping me more than busy, there's no hurry to get back to the Watchmen world.

[Leocomix]

No, it's just about a character from Peter Pan who's used in ways that, to the best of our knowledge, the author never intended her to be used. Or if you prefer, there's the whole deal about the Invisible Man and Mr. Hyde.

I'm not against using someone else's characters in ways contrary to what their creators apparently intended, and I hold that view regardless of whether or not I'm interested in the story itself (sometimes I am, sometimes I'm not). What I am against is the "Moore can use public domain characters any way he wants" argument, because I still see an element of hypocrisy in it. Whether or not the ethics behind the contract are shady, the contract Moore signed means the rights to the Watchmen characters belong to DC, and DC is exercising its right to use those characters however they want to.

I'm also against the "Watchmen was complete in itself, so no one else should write about it" argument. IMO it's hypocritical to follow that line of reasoning and yet condone the work Moore has done with public domain characters, since the creators of those characters intended for their stories to be complete unto themselves as well (unless, of course, the creators themselves wrote the sequels).

Where is the hypocrisy? Moore's characters were stolen. He came up with the story, came up with the characters, was told the rights would revert after one year and never saw the rights coming back to him. What's worse is that he was lured to do the same for V for Vendetta, fot which DC had nothing to do with the inception.

Your whole argument is failing because Moore doesn't write prequels and sequels. So why weren't these star creators coming up with their own stories and characters like he did?

[Jim Thompson]

Where is the hypocrisy? Moore's characters were stolen. He came up with the story, came up with the characters, was told the rights would revert after one year and never saw the rights coming back to him. What's worse is that he was lured to do the same for V for Vendetta, fot which DC had nothing to do with the inception.

Your whole argument is failing because Moore doesn't write prequels and sequels. So why weren't these star creators coming up with their own stories and characters like he did?

Moore's characters were not stolen. He signed a contract allowing DC to use them.

[photonex68]

Where is the hypocrisy? Moore's characters were stolen. He came up with the story, came up with the characters, was told the rights would revert after one year and never saw the rights coming back to him. What's worse is that he was lured to do the same for V for Vendetta, fot which DC had nothing to do with the inception.

Moore's contract said his rights would revert after one year after Watchmen was no longer published, either as a series or as a collection. The book's never gone out of print because it sells like hotcakes. Was DC supposed to stop selling something that was making them money hand over fist?

As for coming up with the characters, according to Comic Book Legends Revealed #359, Moore's original treatment used the Charlton characters, not his own, and only afterward did he create new characters, which were, regardless, based on the Charlton characters. And if DC snookered Moore with the Watchmen contract, then why did he sign a contract for V for Vendetta? Are you saying the man's stupid?

Your whole argument is failing because Moore doesn't write prequels and sequels. So why weren't these star creators coming up with their own stories and characters like he did?

Moore doesn't write prequels and sequels. He just takes other people's characters and writes new stories about them that take place after the original stories that introduced them.

Say, isn't that one definition of "sequel"? I mean, Superman II is considered a sequel to Superman: The Movie because it uses the same characters and tells a story with those characters that occurs after the original.

Maybe you need to reinforce that tissue paper your argument's made of.

[voodoo]

boycott before watchmen!
Should've been left well alone. I hope this is a total and utter failure

[Jim Thompson]

boycott before watchmen!
Should've been left well alone. I hope this is a total and utter failure

We'll see. I'm going to be getting these books, anyway. I'm curious to see what is done with them, and I think there is some great talent associated with this project -- enough for me to want to give it a chance, anyway.

[KevinTBrown]

boycott before watchmen!
Should've been left well alone. I hope this is a total and utter failure

No thanks. I'll buy them all.

And it won't be a failure.

[Wolf_Leader]

I wasn't that big of a fan of the original but I had a passing interest in the prequels just because of the creative teams. I had planned on putting them on my pull list but after seeing the $3.99 cover price I decided not to buy. It has NOTHING to do with how creators have been treated.

The same for me. I actually voted "more interest" on the poll because all the buzz finally got me to take a look at the teams on the books but then later I saw the price. Still, if they turn out well and the trades are cheap enough I might still pick some up.

[blanchett]

Moore doesn't write prequels and sequels. He just takes other people's characters and writes new stories about them that take place after the original stories that introduced them.

I really don't see how it matters whether or not Moore was writing a sequel or a prequel with those characters. There still stories that use other people's characters in ways that they may not like. I don't think anyone is saying that Moore has not been screwed over by DC with his contract but the idea that it's okay to use other people's characters only if your writing a sequel is a tissue paper argument. I think vilifying the creators involved in Before Watchmen is totally hypocritical. If their wrong then Moore himself is wrong. You can't have it both ways and complain about his lack of a voice in how his characters are written but say it's okay for him to use other people's characters, who are dead, and therefore have no voice whatsover.

[photonex68]

I really don't see how it matters whether or not Moore was writing a sequel or a prequel with those characters. There still stories that use other people's characters in ways that they may not like. I don't think anyone is saying that Moore has not been screwed over by DC with his contract but the idea that it's okay to use other people's characters only if your writing a sequel is a tissue paper argument. I think vilifying the creators involved in Before Watchmen is totally hypocritical. If their wrong then Moore himself is wrong. You can't have it both ways and complain about his lack of a voice in how his characters are written but say it's okay for him to use other people's characters, who are dead, and therefore have no voice whatsover.

That's my standpoint as well. If you want to take issue with the "prequel/sequel" thing, talk to Leocomix. He's the one who said that Moore's actions are excused because he "doesn't write prequels or sequels." I was just addressing that issue.

EDIT: I think your perception of the matter equally applies to the argument I've seen that what Moore does is okay because the characters are in the public domain. The "public domain" thing is a handwave, IMO, because whether you're talking LXG or Before Watchmen, you're still talking about a situation in which the original creator of a character has no rights, and therefore has no say in how the character is used.

[TheNewDC]

Of course with the level of buzz and curiosity it's likely they will do well coming out of the game, the real question is how DC will do long term. The company doesn't have a good track record on capitalizing on events. Look at the All-Star series. It was supposed to be DC's version of the Ultimate line with white-hot creators but it never really got any legs in the long run. The only thing strong creators are guaranteed to bring is buzz, whether they deliver on it is another issue.

Look at DC events. One year later. Brightest day.How much momentum did DC ride off of those events that they could bring to the rest of their books. I think a more valid question is sustained interest. What does DC want to do with these characters after this event. Start a new brand featuring these characters. If they did, how many "books" would you buy featuring Watchmen a month. One. Maybe two. Three is pushing it, don't you think, especially in a market where DC feels it's necessary to publish at least 5-7 Batman related books a month. And why does DC feel the need to publish so many Watchmen books right out of the gate if the market is so crowded. How can you maximize profits if you just end up cannibalizing yourself.

How interested are people in these characters and a world that was created to reflect the times more than 25 years ago. A world where grim and gritty was the thing back in the day. Creators have already been exploring the themes of Watchmen in Future Imperfect or Kingdom Come, so it's not like "Watchmen's world" hasn't been tapped or explored.

I think what DC is failing to realize is that Watchmen is not really a brand like Spider-Man, and that any attempt to milk it like a franchise in the long run isn't really going to work that well. Watchmen is more about literacy than crass commercialism, and DC's opening salvo kind of proves their missing the point.

[Alton]

What springs to mind for me is a comparison with Frank Herbert's Dune... the original book was mind-blowingly awesome.. it changed science fiction forever.. And now, the market is flooded with lots and lots of additional Dune novels on top of the original series. Why? Because there's a market for them.. people want to read the further adventures (or previous as the case may be) of the Atreides.. but they aren't expecting another earth shattering moment of pure sci-fi bliss.. just a fun engaging romp.



(though conversely, i gobble up every Dune book i can lay my hands on.. but i'll pipe down before i start some kind of Moore vs Herbert discussion.. where ultimately Tolkien climbs into the ring and takes a chair to both of them)

So if Dune were taken by Moore and he developed a time line that created a Middle Earth Dune with a race of sand dwelling Hobbits and this were done with the approval of Tolkien and Herbert would you buy it? My understanding here is that all Dune sequals were done with the permission of Herbert or his estate. I think you've created a potential goldmine here.Keep me posted,thanks.

[UnravThreads]

I think what DC is failing to realize is that Watchmen is not really a brand like Spider-Man, and that any attempt to milk it like a franchise in the long run isn't really going to work that well. Watchmen is more about literacy than crass commercialism, and DC's opening salvo kind of proves their missing the point.

But they're not milking it like that. They're doing a small number of limited-issue series based on the characters/history, and that's it. This year marks 25 years since the initial series finished (I believe - could be 25 since it started). They've been selling merchandise based on the comic for many years (badges, t-shirts, etc.) - why? Because people keep buying it.

Watchmen is perpetually in the Top Sales charts for comics/graphic novels in book stores, and has been for years. In my opinion, Watchmen's continued success means people still want to read it, and perhaps even want to find out more about it.

[FIFTY-TWO (52)]

I'm also against the "Watchmen was complete in itself, so no one else should write about it" argument. IMO it's hypocritical to follow that line of reasoning and yet condone the work Moore has done with public domain characters, since the creators of those characters intended for their stories to be complete unto themselves as well (unless, of course, the creators themselves wrote the sequels).

This notion that Watchmen was complete in a one and done manner is nonsense because Moore planned on expanding that universe, as revealed in a couple of RPG play books from the 80's.
If Moore owned the Watchmen today, only naive sycophants could believe that he'd never return to the brand. That's precisely why he wants it.

[Alton]

This notion that Watchmen was complete in a one and done manner is nonsense because Moore planned on expanding that universe, as revealed in a couple of RPG play books from the 80's.
If Moore owned the Watchmen today, only naive sycophants could believe that he'd never return to the brand. That's precisely why he wants it.

So you are saying here that because Moore "may" have looked at continuing Watchmen as was his right as creator that it makes DC right in exploiting Watchmen against his wishes? This based on your interpretation of "a couple of RPG play books" that have less legal validity than the intent to defraud clause in the original contract? How Kafka of you and DC. That's a real stretch dude.