I met DC's controversial Before Watchmen series with open arms. Many people didn't. To each their own, but I'm just jotting down my honest thoughts of BF thus far, feel free to disagree. I base my reviews of comics based on a few things. 1) Artwork. Is it sloppy? Is it clean? 2) Story. Do I find myself scratching my head at every page? Am I compelled to continue reading this series? Are any emotions stirred inside my cold dark heart while I read? 3) Do the art and story match up? Is the art amazing and the story dull? Is the story compelling but the art convoluted? Now you know my guidelines, let us continue.
The first strike, Before Watchmen: Minutemen #1
Honestly, this was the one series I was least excited for. Was being the key word. I will tell you I was most excited for Nite Owl, Rorschach, and Dr. Manhattan. After all is said and done, I might have to rearrange them. Minutemen was drawn simply, yet sophisticated. The story was well drawn out, each character was given pretty equal page-time. It wasn't rushed like you might expect. I will definitely suggest minutemen! 9 out of 10
Second: The Silk Spectre #1
I was absolutely blown away by this comic. So well drawn, I could hardly believe it. The story is about a young girl, and could be identified with chick-flicks, but with enough action for guys to dig. It was well paced out, at no point was I left unfilled. Highly recommend this! 10 out of 10
Third: The Comedian #1
This one left me intrigued, but a bit disappointed. It was well drawn with a great story line, but I felt like I was missing a couple of pages. Looking back it mostly all makes sense, but I wanted those 2 extra pages! And the Comedian should have been the one with the best back story. The problem is that so much of his back story was covered in the original Watchmen series. I give this one a 7.5 out of 10
Lastly: Night Owl #1
I thought this issue was a mess. So much ground was covered in so few pages. Dan goes from being 17 years old in the beginning to being paired up with Rorschach by the end. Much too rushed for my liking. These are prequel stories, to expand on the history! They should never just be to be. Although it is well drawn and no collection of BF is complete without it, I give it a 6 out of 10.
Thursday, June 28, 2012
Friday, June 8, 2012
Creator VS. Publisher
I hope you've been keeping up to date on the controversy revolving DC comics and the new Before Watchmen series. I don't want to get in to a bunch of boring details so here it is in short form. DC comics owns the Watchmen series, created by Alan Moore, and illustrated by Dave Gibbons in the mid 1980's. They own the series based on a contract drawn up for Moore that states ownership would revert back to Moore after Watchmen went out of print. It never went out of print and DC has been rolling in the dough for years, against Moore's wishes. Creators and creator sympathisers claim Dc "tricked" Moore out of ownership. Moore also objected to the production of the Watchmen movie in 2009. Moore also detests the Before Watchmen series, calling DC shameless. Gibbons, on the other hand, has given his blessing thus far.
So what's the problem, and who's in the wrong here? Is this a case of the big bad publisher versus poor writer? Or a case of children fighting over a toy? I for one can sympathise with Moore. He had a vision for the series. It had a beginning and an end. And I'm sure you've heard this very argument regurgitated over and over again. But I agree in a sense. Watchmen made its point in 12 issues, and left the series with no possible furtherance. Watchmen was phenomenally written and illustrated. But does the fact that it was well written with a beginning and end mean that the history of the Watchmen universe shouldn't be explored?
I see no reason why it shouldn't. The argument that it's not needed is beside the point. Is anything needed? Watchmen in itself wasn't needed. But it's there. And it shows history. But not all of it. I for one am very interested in the prequels. I want to delve further into the history of what Moore created. That being said, I am disappointed the series went ahead without Moore. As, I'm sure, most people are.
The Watchmen is held in such high regard by almost everyone who has ever read a comic book, that taking on the prequels was probably a very daunting task. These talented people all hold Watchmen in high regards and want to do nothing that would harm the integrity of the series. So far, they have done just that. Minutemen #1 was so refreshing, I think I sighed that sigh of relief we all love when I read the final page. Anything DC does with this series that is short of great, would obviously be met with much more scrutiny than it already has. Not only would the creator enthusiasts have more wood for their fire of constant grumbling, but the ones who were excited for BW would also be enraged.
So back to the dilemma, did DC trick Moore? Or is this a case of "That's MYYYYY toy!". I think it can be summed up just like that! "Here's a toy Alan" "thanks! It's my favourite!" "Hey we need to share that, it's the rules!" "But I don't wanna share, it's mine! You can't use it like that!" "But we have to follow the rules". Fact here is, Moore made the Watchmen, for DC comics. They series was so popular it never went out of print. DC owns it due to this. DC is upholding the contract. If Moore didn't like handing over ownership, he should have taken it to an indie publisher that let him keep ownership. Pretty plain and simple. What do you think? Follow me on twitter and let's talk! @thecomicblog
So what's the problem, and who's in the wrong here? Is this a case of the big bad publisher versus poor writer? Or a case of children fighting over a toy? I for one can sympathise with Moore. He had a vision for the series. It had a beginning and an end. And I'm sure you've heard this very argument regurgitated over and over again. But I agree in a sense. Watchmen made its point in 12 issues, and left the series with no possible furtherance. Watchmen was phenomenally written and illustrated. But does the fact that it was well written with a beginning and end mean that the history of the Watchmen universe shouldn't be explored?
I see no reason why it shouldn't. The argument that it's not needed is beside the point. Is anything needed? Watchmen in itself wasn't needed. But it's there. And it shows history. But not all of it. I for one am very interested in the prequels. I want to delve further into the history of what Moore created. That being said, I am disappointed the series went ahead without Moore. As, I'm sure, most people are.
The Watchmen is held in such high regard by almost everyone who has ever read a comic book, that taking on the prequels was probably a very daunting task. These talented people all hold Watchmen in high regards and want to do nothing that would harm the integrity of the series. So far, they have done just that. Minutemen #1 was so refreshing, I think I sighed that sigh of relief we all love when I read the final page. Anything DC does with this series that is short of great, would obviously be met with much more scrutiny than it already has. Not only would the creator enthusiasts have more wood for their fire of constant grumbling, but the ones who were excited for BW would also be enraged.
So back to the dilemma, did DC trick Moore? Or is this a case of "That's MYYYYY toy!". I think it can be summed up just like that! "Here's a toy Alan" "thanks! It's my favourite!" "Hey we need to share that, it's the rules!" "But I don't wanna share, it's mine! You can't use it like that!" "But we have to follow the rules". Fact here is, Moore made the Watchmen, for DC comics. They series was so popular it never went out of print. DC owns it due to this. DC is upholding the contract. If Moore didn't like handing over ownership, he should have taken it to an indie publisher that let him keep ownership. Pretty plain and simple. What do you think? Follow me on twitter and let's talk! @thecomicblog
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)