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

DC Universe >> View Post
Post By

Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008
Posts: 12,379
In Reply To
D. Strange

Member Since: Tue Sep 19, 2017
Posts: 272
Subj: Re: But has potential to improve the Watchmen-verse by leaps and bounds...
Posted: Mon Dec 11, 2017 at 01:41:52 pm EST (Viewed 310 times)
Reply 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 351 times)

    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.

Stanley's name is spelled Kubrick, and many would argue that Kubrick was a superior director to Welles, who himself was as interested in the formal aspects of filmmaking as much as character.

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

This is an overgeneralization with regards to Kubrick. Some Kubrick characters are that way on purpose, but certainly some notable ones are not: Clare Quilty, Buck Turgidson, Jack D. Ripper, all of Peter Sellers roles in Dr. Strangelove, Alex DeLarge, Jack Torrance, Private Joker, even HAL-9000.

    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.

Disagree. In addition to Daniel, Laurie and Rorschach both feel plenty human in my opinion. Dr. Manhattan isn't supposed to feel human and Ozymandias isn't either to a degree (both are supposed to think of themselves as being amorally above it all).

    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.

You spouting a personal preference as if it were an objective flaw. There's no inherent superiority for a character study over a story more driven by themes. There's no inherent superiority for realistic stories over non-realistic ones. We've seen Kubrick's Shining and Stephen King's television version of The Shining. The public's vast preference is for Kubrick's version. King's version was savaged by critics and viewers alike.

    Moore and Kubrik, I think, share a macro view of things, so the nitty-gritty aspects of writing, the characters, lack certain life.

For two artists who have generated some of the most memorable characters and stories in comics and cinema, this feels like an absurd claim that they are lacking in "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.

Again, this is just your personal preference. Either style can be done well or poorly but you want to imply one is inherently superior. Just because Moore doesn't follow Claremont's style doesn't mean that Moore can't do his own just as well or better. Claremont has his own flaws like returning to the same story over and over, e.g., empowering women only to see them corrupted by it.

    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.

I don't think Marvel is copying Moore or Kubrick in any of their comics over the past few years. It would probably help Marvel if they were.

    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.

Johns isn't a tenth of the artist that Moore or Kubrick are.

    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.

Because Watchmen is great complex storytelling with vivid characters and resonant themes.

    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.

WATCHMEN is far, far smarter than the majority of comics ever published. You really think that much of today's trash is comparable? Among today's comic writers, only Al Ewing comes close in writing intelligent stories.

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

It's about all of the above.

    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.

I hope that didn't hurt too much.

How to make an entrance: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PfMiOlIUGQw
Posted with Mozilla 11.0 on Windows 7
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