Jan. 31, 2012 -- The Associated Press released a photo today of the cover to the WatchmenTPB with the following information:

 

"In this image released by DC Entertainment, the cover of "Watchmen," a graphic novel, is shown. DC Entertainment is launching seven miniseries this summer that will focus on the characters made famous by Alan Moore and Dave Gibbons in their 1986-987 12-issue maxi-series "Watchmen," which has gone on to become one of DC's best-selling graphic novels. (AP Photo/DC Entertainment)"

 

The Associated Press wire service has no stories attached to this photo as of 5:15 EST. I'll post more when I know more.

 

Views: 1092

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Oddly Dave Gibbons has no problem with this arrangement nor is he clamoring for rights.

Rob Liefield may own Supreme but he can't make a movie about him without his inspiration in full view!

Principles are wonderful but Moore could be providing his children, grandchildren and even great grandchildren with a very comfortable lifestyle and a secure future. Or he could have taken the money and donated it to charity. Or started a scholarship. Or whatever good thing he could think of. It is in very questionable taste to refuse money in this economy where people are struggling to earn mininal wage. But he would rather be bitter and act above it all. Hopefully he and his family will never be in a position where they would really need the money!

All so he could market a Watchmen game or action figures himself.

 

Strooth - I have my own ideas of what happened after the end of Watchmen, and I always figured that everyone else that ever read it did, too. As for the prequels - I suspect that that they're probably not going to be all that amazing, I'll most likely make a decision on the day as to whether to pick them up or not.  As for the creator's rights, on the one hand, I can understand a creator feeling proprietorial about his creations - I'm sure I'd feel the same way if I'd ever created anything original and interesting.  On the other hand, he was dealing with the outfit that had Superman off of Siegel and Shuster for twenty-five bucks and a sandwich, he should've known what to expect.

"Strooth - I have my own ideas of what happened after the end of Watchmen, and I always figured that everyone else that ever read it did, too."

That's exactly my point.

I still have my doubts about all of this.  It is like someone taking Van Gogh's "Starry Night" and trying to make another version of it.  Whatever follows it is nothing more than a pale imitation of the original. 

Well...there is that cool version with the exploding TARDIS.

 

I liken Watchmen less to Starry Night or, as Moore himself did in the NY Times piece yesterday, Moby Dick and more to the works of Dickens and Conan Doyle...masters of serial fiction.  And, certainly, NO ONE has touched any of those characters or situations ever again.  ;)

My worry about JMS is that we will get more of his Superman and Wonder Woman runs, which he abandoned like halfway through, and was universally disliked.

Len Wein is fine as a writer he never really blown me away nor really disappointed me. Just always solid work.

Jason Marconnet said:

I honestly don't think I've ever read anything by Wein. Most of his work was before my time (not an excuse). I think he'll do fine, though.

 

JMS's DC work hasn't hit me but the majority of his Amazing Spider-man run and his Rising Stars run were excellent. If he can channel the good out of those two series then we're in for a treat. He's got some good artists backing him up.

Travis Herrick said:

I'm interested in the Azzarello and Cooke books. I have some trepidation with the JMS and Wein series.

Of course, Watchmen can have a sequel!

To flatly declare that there "can't" be a sequel to Watchmen is to deny the possibilities to be developed by the creative mind. Fellows, we read comics! How can anybody who reads comics possibly believe there's no way to come up with a new story, about anything?

Now, whether it's a good story or a bad story or a well-done or poorly executed story, or a story one does or doesn't want to read is another matter ... but to say that there "can't" be another story is stuff and nonsense.

You misunderstood me. I didn't mean a sequel can't be written; I meant a sequel can't be written without violating the ening of the first, specifically, whatever happens after the final panel which only exists in each individual reader's imagination. Was Rorschach's journal destroyed, or was it published, undoing Veidt's scheme and making all those deaths in vain? It's one philosophical question whether or not Nite-Owl, Silk Spectre and Rorschach shold have tried to stop Ozymandias in the first place. It's quite another to undo the results after the fact. I have my answer and I'm sure you have yours as well. The consequences of whatever happened are so far-reaching that a sequel can't be published without revealing that answer and thus spoiling the reader's own version of events.

Figserello said:

 This is not a man thinking clearly nor considering the future.

 

Or someone who puts his money where his principles are. It would seem that it's principles more than anything else that he is kicking up the fuss about.

 

When you argue principles with a corporation, of course, their reply is always "but..But .. there's all this MONEY!"

 

Well said, Figserello. Money does NOT always make everything right.


Philip Portelli said:

Oddly Dave Gibbons has no problem with this arrangement nor is he clamoring for rights.

Rob Liefield may own Supremebut he can't make a movie about him without his inspiration in full view!

Principles are wonderful but Moore could be providing his children, grandchildren and even great grandchildren with a very comfortable lifestyle and a secure future. Or he could have taken the money and donated it to charity. Or started a scholarship. Or whatever good thing he could think of. It is in very questionable taste to refuse money in this economy where people are struggling to earn mininal wage. But he would rather be bitter and act above it all. Hopefully he and his family will never be in a position where they would really need the money!

All so he could market a Watchmengame or action figures himself.

 

You say that like Moore is doing a bad thing.

It is NOT in "very questionable taste to refuse money in this economy where people are struggling to earn mininal wage." DC, or Time Warner, isn't doing him a favor by paying him, or offering to pay him. By his lights, they breached the contract and screwed him out of what was his. Principles ARE wonderful.

This reminds me of a scene in Eight Men Out, which was about several Chicago White Sox players who conspired with gamblers to throw the 1919 World Series. One player, the star pitcher, Eddie Cicotte, was to receive a bonus if he won 30 games during the regular season. After he won 29 games, the owner benched him for the rest of the year, ostensibly to save his arm for the playoffs. When the team made the playoffs, Cicotte asks about the bonus and is told he won't get it: "Twenty-nine is not 30."

Jeff of Earth-J said:

You misunderstood me. I didn't mean a sequel can't be written; I meant a sequel can't be written without violating the ening of the first, specifically, whatever happens after the final panel which only exists in each individual reader's imagination. Was Rorschach's journal destroyed, or was it published, undoing Veidt's scheme and making all those deaths in vain? It's one philosophical question whether or not Nite-Owl, Silk Spectre and Rorschach shold have tried to stop Ozymandias in the first place. It's quite another to undo the results after the fact. I have my answer and I'm sure you have yours as well. The consequences of whatever happened are so far-reaching that a sequel can't be published without revealing that answer and thus spoiling the reader's own version of events.

Yeah ... ? And ... ?

What you say is conceivably true of every story; each viewer or reader can always come up with his or her own "and then what happened?" scenario. Whether that "spoils" things is something I cannot automatically accept as a given.

See Bill Beechler's comments a couple of posts back about the work of Charles Dickens and Arthur Conan Doyle. Some works of fiction stand alone and just fine as they are, thank-you-very-much. For another writer to try to tell "what happened next" somehow lessens the effect of the original work, as if the original writer left something unsaid, or as if the work needed a sequel. I don't think this line of thought is "conceivably true of every story," but I do think it applies to The Watchmen. Having said that, I already said yesterday that I would give these new comics a look.

Jeff of Earth-J said:

See Bill Beechler's comments a couple of posts back about the work of Charles Dickens and Arthur Conan Doyle. Some works of fiction stand alone and just fine as they are, thank-you-very-much. For another writer to try to tell "what happened next" somehow lessens the effect of the original work, as if the original writer left something unsaid, or as if the work needed a sequel. I don't think this line of thought is "conceivably true of every story," but I do think it applies to The Watchmen. Having said that, I already said yesterday that I would give these new comics a look.

Regarding the work of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, you could fill a library with Sherlock Holmes books written by other hands, not to mention films and TV shows that do -- and don't -- follow the tales told in the original novels and short stories (from Wikipedia: Related and derivative worksAdaptations of Sherlock Holmes).

 

Which is exactly the point: None of those have damaged, limited, lessened, weakened or undermined the Holmes canon. It is what it is and they are what they are. As Alan Moore often said, other work doesn't "ruin" my book; it's still there on the shelf, exactly as I wrote it.

Reply to Discussion

RSS

Welcome!

No flame wars. No trolls. But a lot of really smart people.The Captain Comics Round Table tries to be the friendliest and most accurate comics website on the Internet.

SOME ESSENTIALS:

RULES OF THE ROUND TABLE

MODERATORS

SMILIES FOLDER

TIPS ON USING THE BOARD

FOLLOW US:

OUR COLUMNISTS:

Groups

© 2021   Captain Comics, board content ©2013 Andrew Smith   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service