Watchmen

[Alexander]

Looking forward to seeing Law as Dr. Watson in the forthcoming SHERLOCK HOLMES.

Oh, god...another icon fucked with?

Well, not like there haven't been dozens of films, tv series, etc. Young Sherlock Holmes sticks out as a particularly non-canonical one. But reading this again, Jude Law makes sense as Holmes, but Watson???

It gets even better...Holmes will be played by Robert Downey, Jr.! I'm actually looking forward to seeing what he does with the role...

[Tom Storer]

I don't want to fart in church or anything, but a friend gave me the collected "Watchmen" to read before going to the movie. Not that I had had any intention of going to the movie, but he didn't know that. Anyway... it was a fun read. But, and here's the fart in church, although I am perfectly open to graphic novels, I just can't take costumed superheroes seriously. I mean, costumed superheroes? They're fine when you're 10 years old, but I really have trouble suspending my disbelief. It's sort of like science fiction but without the imaginative link with our real world that makes the best science fiction work. If you're going to produce something literary, something with nuanced characters and plot, themes of desire and ambition, memory and betrayal, solitude and society, violence, compromise and redemption... why not write a novel, or a graphic novel, without costumed superheroes? So that it's, you know, more real or something. I just don't get the fascination with costumed superheroes.

[Larry Kart]

I don't want to fart in church or anything, but a friend gave me the collected "Watchmen" to read before going to the movie. Not that I had had any intention of going to the movie, but he didn't know that. Anyway... it was a fun read. But, and here's the fart in church, although I am perfectly open to graphic novels, I just can't take costumed superheroes seriously. I mean, costumed superheroes? They're fine when you're 10 years old, but I really have trouble suspending my disbelief. It's sort of like science fiction but without the imaginative link with our real world that makes the best science fiction work. If you're going to produce something literary, something with nuanced characters and plot, themes of desire and ambition, memory and betrayal, solitude and society, violence, compromise and redemption... why not write a novel, or a graphic novel, without costumed superheroes? So that it's, you know, more real or something. I just don't get the fascination with costumed superheroes.

In part "Watchmen" plays off of and plays with the longtime pre-existing fascination with costumed superheros, this fascination having been a good-sized social fact at least since the advent of Superman and thus no less a part of "our real world" than a good many other things that might seem at first to exist only in the collective imagination but in fact also slop over the edges (in part because the initial fantasies that fueled these realizations in comic book/comic strip form involved the slopping over into the popular entertainment medium of already substantial real-world fears and dreams). Alan Moore's sense of all this is very sure IMO, though of course he takes several big (or not so big?) steps by having his superheros function overtly in the real world of "Watchmen."

For example, it could be argued -- and it has been by some historians -- that the collective ideological underpinnings of, say, our adventure in Vietnam cast the American military in the role of an agonized superhero that of course could not be outfought on any battlefield but instead was finally betrayed and/or abandoned by spineless (or worse) elements on the home front. That framework, it would seem, still remains in place.

Finally, there are many graphic novels without costumed superheros; that particular stew of fears and wishes is not

the be-all of the form. But it is part of its DNA, and it didn't come from nowhere.

[ghost of miles]

I'm sure some here have already read it, but Michael Chabon's novel THE AMAZING ADVENTURES OF KAVALIER AND CLAY is an entertaining fictional take on the early days of writing and drawing costumed superheros (and superheroines).

[ghost of miles]

Looking forward to seeing Law as Dr. Watson in the forthcoming SHERLOCK HOLMES.

Oh, god...another icon fucked with?

Well, not like there haven't been dozens of films, tv series, etc. Young Sherlock Holmes sticks out as a particularly non-canonical one. But reading this again, Jude Law makes sense as Holmes, but Watson???

It gets even better...Holmes will be played by Robert Downey, Jr.! I'm actually looking forward to seeing what he does with the role...

Me too. And I actually think a lot of the TV/cinematic portrayals of Watson have been rather off the mark.

[Shawn]

All is needed to know was this film was being made by the guy that did 300...that was enough reason for me to avoid it.

[jazzbo]

Well, I liked 300, so that's not holding me back. I'll probably see it next weekend.

[Jazzmoose]

But, and here's the fart in church, although I am perfectly open to graphic novels, I just can't take costumed superheroes seriously. I mean, costumed superheroes? They're fine when you're 10 years old, but I really have trouble suspending my disbelief.

I don't think you're farting in church; I felt from the beginning that the absurdity of superhero comics was one of the things Moore was lambasting in the book.

[Jazzmoose]

Me too. And I actually think a lot of the TV/cinematic portrayals of Watson have been rather off the mark.

"Rather off the mark"? How about completely pathetic and insulting. I've seen one movie I enjoyed, an adaptation of Hound (which I can't seem to locate on the net to show which one I mean!), which, though flawed, at least portrayed Watson as intelligent.

[Shawn]

Me too. And I actually think a lot of the TV/cinematic portrayals of Watson have been rather off the mark.

"Rather off the mark"? How about completely pathetic and insulting. I've seen one movie I enjoyed, an adaptation of Hound (which I can't seem to locate on the net to show which one I mean!), which, though flawed, at least portrayed Watson as intelligent.

I like the way Watson is portrayed in the 1958 Hammer Films version of The Hound Of The Baskervilles. Peter Cushing is great as Holmes.

[BruceH]

Looking forward to seeing Law as Dr. Watson in the forthcoming SHERLOCK HOLMES.

Oh, god...another icon fucked with?

Well, not like there haven't been dozens of films, tv series, etc. Young Sherlock Holmes sticks out as a particularly non-canonical one. But reading this again, Jude Law makes sense as Holmes, but Watson???

It gets even better...Holmes will be played by Robert Downey, Jr.! I'm actually looking forward to seeing what he does with the role...

Me too. And I actually think a lot of the TV/cinematic portrayals of Watson have been rather off the mark.

I agree. He wasn't supposed to be a total schlub.

[Alexander]

I don't want to fart in church or anything, but a friend gave me the collected "Watchmen" to read before going to the movie. Not that I had had any intention of going to the movie, but he didn't know that. Anyway... it was a fun read. But, and here's the fart in church, although I am perfectly open to graphic novels, I just can't take costumed superheroes seriously. I mean, costumed superheroes? They're fine when you're 10 years old, but I really have trouble suspending my disbelief. It's sort of like science fiction but without the imaginative link with our real world that makes the best science fiction work. If you're going to produce something literary, something with nuanced characters and plot, themes of desire and ambition, memory and betrayal, solitude and society, violence, compromise and redemption... why not write a novel, or a graphic novel, without costumed superheroes? So that it's, you know, more real or something. I just don't get the fascination with costumed superheroes.

Bear in mind that Moore was writing for DC comics, a company that primarily publishes superhero comics. You are right, of course. Comics don't HAVE to be about superheroes. As with any medium, comics can accomidate any and all subject matters and genres. Some of the best comics are NOT about superheroes (Spiegelman's "Maus"; Satrapi's "Persepolis"; Clowes' "Ghost World"; Ware's "ACME Novelty Library" and "Jimmy Corrigan"; Bagge's "Hate"). But some of the best ARE about superheroes (Miller's "Dark Knight" and "Batman: Year One"; Loeb and Sale's "Batman: The Long Halloween"; Moore's "The Killing Joke").

While Moore cut his teeth in England writing superhero comics ("Marvel Man," "Captain Britain") a great many of his comics are NOT about heroes at all. "From Hell" deals with Victorian England and the Ripper crimes. "Lost Girls" is erotica. "The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen" is about the adventure heroes of Victorian literature, which prefigure the superheroes of the 20th century. "V for Vendetta" is an adventure story set in an Orwellian future. The unfinished "Big Numbers" deals with life in North Hampton during the early 1990s. Although published by DC, "Swamp Thing" was a horror comic.

But Moore clearly finds a great deal to explore in the idea of superheroes, since he has returned to them so often. His unfishised "1963" miniseries for Image was a brilliant parody of Marvel Comics during that era. The ABC books each examined different facets of superheroes: "Tom Strong" gave us a pulp hero (in the mold of Doc Savage) in the modern world. "Promethea" explored mythology and magic, as well as science and fiction. "Top Ten" told the story of a police force in a city made up entirely of super heroes, where everybody - cops, criminals, and ordinary citizens - has super powers. "Tomorrow Stories" paid tribute to comic visionaries like Will Eisner and Harvey Kurtzman in stories that satirized comic books and pop culture. He is simply the greatest comic book author alive.

[Alexander]

All is needed to know was this film was being made by the guy that did 300...that was enough reason for me to avoid it.

Again, clearly Snyder's heart is on the right peg. He clearly loves the work of Moore and Miller and in both films he tries very hard (too hard) to adapt the books faithfully. It's not that he has done a poor job on purpose. His talent doesn't match his ambition. And I do give him credit for both his love of the source material and his ambition in trying to do right by it.

The funny thing is that for ages and ages, every time a comic book came to the screen, it was done by people who DIDN'T love the form. Tim Burton (a brilliant director in his own right) stated at the time that he had never read "Batman" and had no interest in making the "Batman" comic fans wanted to see. He didn't want to make Frank Miller's "Batman" or even Bob Kane's "Batman." He wanted to make TIM BURTON'S "Batman." Burton kept the familiar elements of the book, but he used it as a springboard to tell the story he wanted to tell and make the movie he wanted to make. Which is his right, of course, but it didn't endear him to readers like me who wanted to see the kind of story we were reading in the comics.

Now, oddly enough, Christopher Nolan who has done an absolutely amazing job with the Batman films has deviated significantly from the "cannon" of the comics. His Joker has nothing whatever to do with the Joker of the comics, at least in terms of his backstory. But his Joker comes far closer to the SPIRIT of the way the Joker has been portrayed by writers like Miller and Moore than did Burton's, even though Burton's Joker hewed closer to the comic in terms of the character's look.

I think a director like Gilliam, Arnofsky, or even Nolan, would have given us a "Watchmen" closer to the truth of the novel, even if it wasn't as faithful to the letter of the book, than that provided by Snyder. The guy's just not a very good FILMMAKER.

[BruceH]

I don't want to fart in church or anything, but a friend gave me the collected "Watchmen" to read before going to the movie. Not that I had had any intention of going to the movie, but he didn't know that. Anyway... it was a fun read. But, and here's the fart in church, although I am perfectly open to graphic novels, I just can't take costumed superheroes seriously. I mean, costumed superheroes? They're fine when you're 10 years old, but I really have trouble suspending my disbelief. It's sort of like science fiction but without the imaginative link with our real world that makes the best science fiction work. If you're going to produce something literary, something with nuanced characters and plot, themes of desire and ambition, memory and betrayal, solitude and society, violence, compromise and redemption... why not write a novel, or a graphic novel, without costumed superheroes? So that it's, you know, more real or something. I just don't get the fascination with costumed superheroes.

Bear in mind that Moore was writing for DC comics, a company that primarily publishes superhero comics. You are right, of course. Comics don't HAVE to be about superheroes. As with any medium, comics can accomidate any and all subject matters and genres. Some of the best comics are NOT about superheroes (Spiegelman's "Maus"; Satrapi's "Persepolis"; Clowes' "Ghost World"; Ware's "ACME Novelty Library" and "Jimmy Corrigan"; Bagge's "Hate").

I love "Hate."

[Larry Kart]

I don't want to fart in church or anything, but a friend gave me the collected "Watchmen" to read before going to the movie. Not that I had had any intention of going to the movie, but he didn't know that. Anyway... it was a fun read. But, and here's the fart in church, although I am perfectly open to graphic novels, I just can't take costumed superheroes seriously. I mean, costumed superheroes? They're fine when you're 10 years old, but I really have trouble suspending my disbelief. It's sort of like science fiction but without the imaginative link with our real world that makes the best science fiction work. If you're going to produce something literary, something with nuanced characters and plot, themes of desire and ambition, memory and betrayal, solitude and society, violence, compromise and redemption... why not write a novel, or a graphic novel, without costumed superheroes? So that it's, you know, more real or something. I just don't get the fascination with costumed superheroes.

Bear in mind that Moore was writing for DC comics, a company that primarily publishes superhero comics. You are right, of course. Comics don't HAVE to be about superheroes. As with any medium, comics can accomidate any and all subject matters and genres. Some of the best comics are NOT about superheroes (Spiegelman's "Maus"; Satrapi's "Persepolis"; Clowes' "Ghost World"; Ware's "ACME Novelty Library" and "Jimmy Corrigan"; Bagge's "Hate").

I love "Hate."

Me, too, as well as "Ghost World," but Chris Ware puts me to sleep, and I despise "Maus."

[Alexander]

I don't want to fart in church or anything, but a friend gave me the collected "Watchmen" to read before going to the movie. Not that I had had any intention of going to the movie, but he didn't know that. Anyway... it was a fun read. But, and here's the fart in church, although I am perfectly open to graphic novels, I just can't take costumed superheroes seriously. I mean, costumed superheroes? They're fine when you're 10 years old, but I really have trouble suspending my disbelief. It's sort of like science fiction but without the imaginative link with our real world that makes the best science fiction work. If you're going to produce something literary, something with nuanced characters and plot, themes of desire and ambition, memory and betrayal, solitude and society, violence, compromise and redemption... why not write a novel, or a graphic novel, without costumed superheroes? So that it's, you know, more real or something. I just don't get the fascination with costumed superheroes.

Bear in mind that Moore was writing for DC comics, a company that primarily publishes superhero comics. You are right, of course. Comics don't HAVE to be about superheroes. As with any medium, comics can accomidate any and all subject matters and genres. Some of the best comics are NOT about superheroes (Spiegelman's "Maus"; Satrapi's "Persepolis"; Clowes' "Ghost World"; Ware's "ACME Novelty Library" and "Jimmy Corrigan"; Bagge's "Hate").

I love "Hate."

Me, too, as well as "Ghost World," but Chris Ware puts me to sleep, and I despise "Maus."

How can one despise "Maus"? Do you dislike the art? Or is it that it has become an untouchable "classic," taught in high schools and universities?

Ware is an amazing draughtsman. I don't think any living cartoonist draws buildings as well (he's probably the greatest since Windsor McCay). I also love the fact that his stories hit so close to home that it's unsettling. Every one of his books and strips makes me feel depressed and creepy. He's brilliant!

[sal]

Looks like I'm going to be in the minority here, but I thought this movie was really good. Yes, its a film for the fanboys. Will the non-fanboys like it? Who knows? I saw it with my cousin, who had never even heard of the graphic novel, and she loved it. I've read the book several times, and for me, I really appreciated Zak Snyder's faithfulness. I'm glad it wasn't watered down for the pg-13 Spiderman audiences just for the sake of making a dollar. Its not a pretty story. No need for the gloss.

I understand completely that this isn't a movie that everybody is going to like. It will polarize. It will appeal to a certain market. And that's fine. The negative reviews aren't surprising at all. But in the end, Snyder did what he was supposed to do....he brought Watchmen to the screen. You can take it or leave it. I had a blast.

[Jazzmoose]

I love "Hate."

Hate and Clowes' Eightball were definitely on my must read comics list, back when I had a must read comics list...

[Larry Kart]

I don't want to fart in church or anything, but a friend gave me the collected "Watchmen" to read before going to the movie. Not that I had had any intention of going to the movie, but he didn't know that. Anyway... it was a fun read. But, and here's the fart in church, although I am perfectly open to graphic novels, I just can't take costumed superheroes seriously. I mean, costumed superheroes? They're fine when you're 10 years old, but I really have trouble suspending my disbelief. It's sort of like science fiction but without the imaginative link with our real world that makes the best science fiction work. If you're going to produce something literary, something with nuanced characters and plot, themes of desire and ambition, memory and betrayal, solitude and society, violence, compromise and redemption... why not write a novel, or a graphic novel, without costumed superheroes? So that it's, you know, more real or something. I just don't get the fascination with costumed superheroes.

Bear in mind that Moore was writing for DC comics, a company that primarily publishes superhero comics. You are right, of course. Comics don't HAVE to be about superheroes. As with any medium, comics can accomidate any and all subject matters and genres. Some of the best comics are NOT about superheroes (Spiegelman's "Maus"; Satrapi's "Persepolis"; Clowes' "Ghost World"; Ware's "ACME Novelty Library" and "Jimmy Corrigan"; Bagge's "Hate").

I love "Hate."

Me, too, as well as "Ghost World," but Chris Ware puts me to sleep, and I despise "Maus."

How can one despise "Maus"? Do you dislike the art? Or is it that it has become an untouchable "classic," taught in high schools and universities?

Ware is an amazing draughtsman. I don't think any living cartoonist draws buildings as well (he's probably the greatest since Windsor McCay). I also love the fact that his stories hit so close to home that it's unsettling. Every one of his books and strips makes me feel depressed and creepy. He's brilliant!

I found the basic ploy in "Maus" (use of humanoid animals to retell events of the Holocaust) to be cheap, trivializing, smug, morally offensive, you name it. YMMV, but I felt that in my gut at first glance and do every time I take another look at "Maus." Don't like anything else I've seen from Spiegelman either; he's a pretentious little twit IMO, whose eye was always on the main chance. Ware is a superb draughtsman, but how often, and with such an agonizing lack of incident, do I need to visit the land of self-indulgent depression and creepiness. Push the damn thing somewhere, Chris! Daniel Clowes does, and I wouldn't say that he's any less melancholic than Ware.

Underlying all this, perhaps, is the way I see the whole "new comics" medium -- not that it's monolithic, but either I'm way off in my thinking here, or you'll catch my drift. Both historically and inherently, the medium is one of pictorial storytelling (I know -- "duh"), and while under the stress of various (for want of better term) post-modern impulses (self-conscious and otherwise) a whole lot of sometimes very effective dicking around with that narrative storytelling basis has been done, too much dicking around, and/or tone-deaf dicking around (vide "Maus" IMO), or dicking around taken to the point of navel-gazing near abstraction, etc., and there's nothing left but broken parts on the ground. Actually, I think that was, from the other side of things, a big part of Bill Griffith's profound dislike of "Watchmen" -- that Alan Moore was too attached to the medium's pictorial storytelling impulses and some its familiar trappings, that he wasn't hip and "liberated" enough. Well, I'm all for hipness and liberation when it works in terms of the medium, but when it doesn't, I get bored or annoyed.

All the above opinions are subjective, of course, but my sense of the underlying structural issues might be useful, even to "Maus" lovers.

[ejp626]

... but how often, and with such an agonizing lack of incident, do I need to visit the land of self-indulgent depression and creepiness. Push the damn thing somewhere, Chris!

Interesting, though would we say the same about Krazy Kat (that it doesn't go anywhere)? There are occasional short narrative arcs, but ultimately everything comes back to a kat, a mouse, a brick, a dog and a jail. It is almost a meditation on the endless repetitiveness of life, as well as the perversity of love and desire or the many faces of crime and punishment. But it is also awfully repetitive.

I really do like Ben Katchor's older work (hard to find his new work now) but it is all very much of one tone -- a lament on the passing of Brooklyn of the 1950s. The characters sort of walk through this half-remembered, half-invented city having adventures nearly as momentous as Leopold Bloom's, but do they "go anywhere?"

I had some other examples in mind, but I have forgotten them.

That said, I tend to find reading Chris Ware's panels fairly exhausting and the reward for going through everything isn't usually worth it, since the punchline is that you grow old and die alone. The ones I do like are the ones in the apartment building with the young woman with the artificial leg. They hold my interest a bit better.

[Larry Kart]

... but how often, and with such an agonizing lack of incident, do I need to visit the land of self-indulgent depression and creepiness. Push the damn thing somewhere, Chris!

Interesting, though would we say the same about Krazy Kat (that it doesn't go anywhere)? There are occasional short narrative arcs, but ultimately everything comes back to a kat, a mouse, a brick, a dog and a jail. It is almost a meditation on the endless repetitiveness of life, as well as the perversity of love and desire or the many faces of crime and punishment. But it is also awfully repetitive.

I really do like Ben Katchor's older work (hard to find his new work now) but it is all very much of one tone -- a lament on the passing of Brooklyn of the 1950s. The characters sort of walk through this half-remembered, half-invented city having adventures nearly as momentous as Leopold Bloom's, but do they "go anywhere?"

I had some other examples in mind, but I have forgotten them.

That said, I tend to find reading Chris Ware's panels fairly exhausting and the reward for going through everything isn't usually worth it, since the punchline is that you grow old and die alone. The ones I do like are the ones in the apartment building with the young woman with the artificial leg. They hold my interest a bit better.

But "Krazy Kat" is funny! The way "ultimately everything comes back to a kat, a mouse, a brick, a dog and a jail" is the essence of its wit. The "circling back" resolutions are the shape of the jokes, and the jokes (if you're so inclined) work. Now I can imagine any number of reasonable people finding "Krazy Kat" to be both unamusing and repetitive, but I have no doubt that George Herriman himself almost always found it both absorbing and amusing and hoped/assumed that others would too. By contrast, the "payoff" in Chris Ware's panels seems to be that he and we are still standing in s--t, and that he kind of enjoys being there. E-e-e-s-h.

Nice drawing, though.

[RDK]

I like Superman!

[Alexander]

... but how often, and with such an agonizing lack of incident, do I need to visit the land of self-indulgent depression and creepiness. Push the damn thing somewhere, Chris!

Interesting, though would we say the same about Krazy Kat (that it doesn't go anywhere)? There are occasional short narrative arcs, but ultimately everything comes back to a kat, a mouse, a brick, a dog and a jail. It is almost a meditation on the endless repetitiveness of life, as well as the perversity of love and desire or the many faces of crime and punishment. But it is also awfully repetitive.

I really do like Ben Katchor's older work (hard to find his new work now) but it is all very much of one tone -- a lament on the passing of Brooklyn of the 1950s. The characters sort of walk through this half-remembered, half-invented city having adventures nearly as momentous as Leopold Bloom's, but do they "go anywhere?"

I had some other examples in mind, but I have forgotten them.

That said, I tend to find reading Chris Ware's panels fairly exhausting and the reward for going through everything isn't usually worth it, since the punchline is that you grow old and die alone. The ones I do like are the ones in the apartment building with the young woman with the artificial leg. They hold my interest a bit better.

I do like the Building Stories (with the female amputee), but my favorite Ware material is the Rusty Brown stories, which are about a creepy toy collector (when Rusty's an adult) and a sad little boy (when Rusty is a kid). The Rusty Brown stories get REALLY creepy, especially when Rusty starts spying on his best friend's preteen daughter while she's on the toilet! These stories make me feel REALLY bad when I read them, but that's the point of them!

[BruceH]

I like Superman!

I hate to sound like a total wacked-out fanboy, but the Superman stories I like the most are the ones written by Alan Moore.

[Alexander]

I like Superman!

I hate to sound like a total wacked-out fanboy, but the Superman stories I like the most are the ones written by Alan Moore.

I love "Whatever Happened to the Man of Tomorrow"! (Superman mythos ended by Moore...)