Before Watchmen: Ozymandias #1 Comic Review Comments -


Showing items 31 - 39 of 39
<<  <  1 2 3 4 
jedibanner 7/10/2012 7:27:31 AM

Sure....the I need a new Mrs. Jedibanner....

joelr 7/11/2012 8:22:33 PM

FYI- For the month of June the Before Watchmen books took the 5th through 8th spots on the top ten. AvX #6 was the top book of the month.

Roqueja 7/11/2012 8:47:19 PM

Heya guys!  I really do like the discusions about this very subject.  I'm waiting for the trades myself.  Maybe an omnibus collection. 

@ jedi - respect atcha mang.   I was noticing that as other examples of stories that you feel should not have any other expansion to the original, you named a couple of very good movies.  Without trying to sound like a dick, are there any other comic book properties not owned by the creator that you feel shouldn't be tinkered with ever?  Or is this one about it?

FYI -If you've ever watched equals three, his background wallpaper is every page of Watchmen.

DaForce1 7/12/2012 5:17:28 AM

 Roqueja, well there are a lot of classic storylines that have been done within a series, but honestly outside of Watchmen I'm having a hard time coming up with another example of a book that doesn't need a sequel/prequel treatment. I mean there's stuff like "Batman Returns" (which was kind of ruined by Miller himself with a sequel) or "Red Son", but those are all takeoffs of ongoing series. "V For Vendetta" would probably be an example. After all, going back and doing a prequel of how V came to be, or doing a sequel to what happened after the revolution would be anti-climactic to the original story. 

Other than that, I can't really think of any good standalone properties that would be harmed by sequels or prequels. Mainly because the standalone story story with characters developed just to tell that story are kind of rare themselves. 

jedibanner 7/12/2012 5:52:02 AM IS a good question.

First, my exemples were originally brought on by DaForce1 for the movies so, it should be to his credit.

Second, confirming that Watchmen was a Mini-series means it has to be compared with other mini-series and your question should be, is there other mini-series that shouldn't deserve sequels or prequels. The aspect of properties and a character or a universe being created should not be just simplified with the usual ''it's not Moore's characters so they can do whatever they want'' and should be considered deeper then the characters themselves IMO.

Moore does not owns the Watchmen characters, it's DC's. We all agree on this.

But the mental business aspect of comics has evolved over the years and for many decades, the one exceptions to many of the unwanted sequels or prequels has always been Watchmen. Why? Obviously someone though it could be more developped and, again, it is in DC's rights.

The main issue is more of a morality thing IMO. Like your question Roqueja, why did many other books, characters or stories get sequels or prequels? I think because in today's business, you prepare in advance so if you create something new, we know that if it will become a success, sequels or prequels will come into effects (like Kick-ass...I would be very surprised if Millar hadn't prepared in advance sequels or prequels). Nowadays success of a book means automatically sequels and side stories and one-offs and all that. Which is ok.

I loved Preacher and loved the side-one-offs and mini-series. But in the was prepared that way...conceived in a way that, if it works, we can go in different stories on the side and that's what they did. Also, the biggest aspect of this exemple is that all, ALL stories were written by Garth Ennis, even the side stories therefore, he had control over how his characters were written which I would assume is what he requested in a manner of respect and honnor of the series. if Moore had a better relationship with DC, he wouldl've at least like to do the stories himself I would bet (but, that is an assumption).

So in the end, there is many aspect of why certain books shouldn't get sequels or prequels. I have to rely again on DaForce1 for a great exemples like The Dark Knight Returns or maybe Superman, the Man of Tomorrow for stories who didn't or shouldn't get a sequel or prequel. But the one thing that I keep thinking is that, these characters like Batman or Superman or Captain America...they are all in mainstream comics, they are already being sold and re-sold and re-told in so many different ways already, it wouldn't be as a big deal as what they are doing with's not the same.

Watchmen is like an indie film or book or was written as a one-off, excellent story, characters that weren't used were now just being used for this one time story. It was written as a mini-series and that's it. If there was to be should've been to Moore to go into what he had in mind when he wrote the originals. I had promised myself I wouldn't talk about this anymore...I'm weak....sooo weak.

rogue188 7/12/2012 3:38:39 PM

Regardless of how we feel about the tampering of Moore's magnum opus, I have to say Ozymandius 1 wasn't bad for an origin story. I have always loved Jae Lee as an artist, and his take is excellent. The writing was decent, and he captured the correct voice of the hero(villain), detached and self-absorbed. I need to read some more from the miniseries to give a better judgement. So far, I have only read this one and the Comedian. The rest can suck it unless I hear something excellent.

And again, I am not saying I am happy with this whole launch of new titles, but I will say I would rather read them and make my own judgement. Yes, this is Moore's world, but there have been so many comic writers who have done an excellent job by taking a new spin on a hero. I say read first and then make your call instead of getting angry and perhaps missing out on good stories.

jedibanner 7/12/2012 4:37:40 PM

Fair comments rogue188...I don't think talent is the issue here but rather the existence of the comic itself. I like most of the writers and artist on the mini-series but regardless of what they do, my judgment is on the comic being a comic overall, not who is writting it or drawing it.

And some may find it good, some bad...I find it each is own.

DaForce1 7/12/2012 10:04:11 PM

 For me, it's not who is doing it (artists, writers, etc.) but rather that it doesn't need to be done. Like I stated in the previous post, Frank Miller's sequel to The Dark Knight Returns didn't need to be done, and his own sequel kind of tainted the original by how bad the sequel was that came out. 

I don't need that kind of taint for Watchmen. Even the movie was okay, but quite a bit on the soul less side. Mainly due to Snydercopying scenes from the book, but not getting the feeling or tone of the book right. But then again, it's hard to get that sense of dread when the era (and those threats unique to that era) that spawned it has passed on.

Roqueja 7/12/2012 10:41:51 PM

Thanks for the well thought out answers guys.  It had occured to me that other characters weren't coming up in reference, and it made the conversation unique in that I couldn't think of a single other comic property that people would defend the source material quite so stanchly.  Kudos for indulging me.

As for the movie, I loved it.  Snyder was in the tightest spot possible, with the "You can't please everybody" syndrome in his face from day one.  He recreated shots and got razzed, he changed some parts and got it from the other side.  It was handed to him full well knowing that the co-creater of the story had deemed it unfilmable, and yet he showed on set every day to bring the story to life in a different medium with amazing enthusiasm.  He looked like I would have had I the opportunity to step onto the set of the comic that changed comics. (For me anyway.)  Like a fanboy in fanboy heaven.  The behind the scenes of Snyder is somebody with great talent for medium translation enjoying the hell out of what he does.  He didn't bow to pressure from anybody on any side to make it a little more this, or a little less of that.  He did his vision of it, and I would doubt that anyone could have done a better job.  It was different enough that it wasn't the Watchmen of the comics, and that's because it wasn't.  It was the Watchmen of the movies and I am more than okay with that.  I am going to take that same mindset to reading the prequels, and it will be the Watchmen of the prequels.  With the talent and planning involved with it, I don't think that I will be dissappointed.


<<  <  1 2 3 4 


You must be logged in to leave a comment. Please click here to login.