Dave Galanter
December 1st 1969 - December 12th 2020
He was loved.

DC Universe >> View Post
Post By
D. Strange

Member Since: Tue Sep 19, 2017
Posts: 272
In Reply To

Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008
Posts: 1,414
Subj: But has potential to improve the Watchmen-verse by leaps and bounds...
Posted: Thu Nov 30, 2017 at 03:37:27 am EST (Viewed 373 times)
Reply Subj: Slow, unsteady start. Not in the same universe of quality as WATCHMEN.
Posted: Wed Nov 29, 2017 at 04:33:53 pm EST (Viewed 349 times)

Watchmen is by no means a perfect piece and has its fair share of flaws.

I'll wait as you assemble an angry mob. While I wait for them to arrive, I will elaborate.

Keep in mind, I am not saying it is bad.

I once heard Moore described as the Orson Welles of comics. He isn't, not by a long shot. I would however say he is the Kubrik. The detail orientation, and all of it serving a larger idea, hat is pour Kubrik.

However, he also shares many of Kubrik's faults. That includes characters that can seem cold, sterile, and flat. Especially in Watchmen.

Nite Ow is the only one that really has an arc, but none of them really feel human. Even when they talk about their pasts, it feels more like a fact sheet than a real life. Ozymandias being the worst offender, and Rorschach (who gets an actual dive into memories, mell... he doesn't fair much better.

It isn't surprising, since the characters don't lead teh story, the point Moore wants to make do.

This is much like The Shinning, which I assume you heard the conflict over. Stephen King doesn't write horror or fantasy, he writes character studies.

That is why he was upset over the shinning, the characters in the movie are often sentient props.

Moore and Kubrik, I think, share a macro view of things, so the nitty-gritty aspects of writing, the characters, lack certain life. In many ways Watchmen was almost a contrast to most comics, who being a serialized medium, depend on characters, with larger points taking a back seat. Most notably, Claremont's X-men... the biggest comic in the world at the time.

The larger adoption of that philosophy of Moore and Kubrik, is actually what is angering many people about Marvel over the past few years. Admittedly, it is done less expertly.


Well, that is exactly why I am excited. Geoff Johns is from the character school, he loves exploring them. There is potential for a whole new side of the universe to be shown.

Ozymandias showed more life and realism in his few pages than in all of Watchmen.

It will be nice to get the micro, emotional view, of what was predominately a Macro, commentary.

Some may say it was Moore's goal to make all the characters less real, but I disagree, this shows up across Moore's writing.

To finish off I will say this, as a character guy, who enjoyed the 70s back issues with deep themes, loves sci-fi (a genre based on parable), and read Watchmen once in high school, and then again afterward (both times years after the shock element wore off), it took me years to get why this is so beloved.

It isn't REALLY any smarter than a lot of other works. It just goes about the story differently. And I do respect it, and I can enjoy it. I just appreciate it much more than I enjoy it, and lack a sort of fog many seem to have about it.

Because it isn't about people, or heroes, or events. it is about concepts (not teh people who believe in them)

Hopefully, this will help you appreciate Doomsday Clock more.

I also hope you can see my side and understand it, but given my history with many Watchmen fans, I assume you have picked out an assassin. So, do me a favor, and just don't make it hurt.

Posted with Mozilla Firefox 52.0 on Windows Vista
Alvaro's Comicboards powered by On Topic™ © 2003-2021 Powermad Software
All the content of these boards Copyright © 1996-2021 by Comicboards/TVShowboards. Software Copyright © 2003-2021 Powermad Software