Watchmen

[Shryke]

Or, more simply, when you get big enough, you don't need those bridges to go back.

[McCloskey]

Looks like Fox and Warner Brothers have finally reached a settlement, and the movie will not be delayed.

Great News!

[Elrostar]

I am much relieved.

[Harlot]

I can't wait for this.

[Ran]

To quote a bit of Wikipedia, discussing the critical reception:

Watchmen received critical praise, both inside and outside of the comics industry. Time, which noted that the series was "by common assent the best of breed [sic]" of the new wave of comics published at the time, praised Watchmen as "a superlative feat of imagination, combining sci-fi, political satire, knowing evocations of comics past and bold reworkings of current graphic formats into a dysutopian mystery story."[57] In 1988, Watchmen received a Hugo Award in the Other Forms category.[58] Since its release, Watchmen has garnered praise as a seminal work of the comic book medium. In Art of the Comic Book: An Aesthetic History, Robert Harvey wrote that with Watchmen, Moore and Gibbons "had demonstrated as never before the capacity of the [comic book] medium to tell a sophisticated story that could be engineered only in comics".[59] In his review of the Absolute Edition of the collection, Dave Itzkoff of The New York Times wrote that the dark legacy of Watchmen, "one that Moore almost certainly never intended, whose DNA is encoded in the increasingly black inks and bleak storylines that have become the essential elements of the contemporary superhero comic book," is "a domain he has largely ceded to writers and artists who share his fascination with brutality but not his interest in its consequences, his eagerness to tear down old boundaries but not his drive to find new ones."[60] In 1999, The Comics Journal ranked Watchmen at number 91 on its list of the Top 100 English-Language Comics of the 20th Century.[61] Watchmen was the only graphic novel to appear on Time's 2005 list of "the 100 best English-language novels from 1923 to the present".[62]

It's a brilliant, brilliant work. The previews are just quick flashes of images that don't really give you any of the narrative.

Read the Themes section if you want to know a bit more about it without any real spoilers.

[Brude]

Triskele, just read it, it's better the less you know about it beforehand.

Put it this way, Time Magazine named it one of the 100 best English language novels of the 20th Century. Not comic books, novels. That means it's on the same list with Cormac McCarthy, Thomas Pynchon, George Orwell, Ernest Hemingway, F. Scott Fitzgerald, etc., etc.

[Ser Hot Pie]

Can you guys give me a hand here? I am not the biggest SFF fan in the world even though I love a few choice things (LOTR, ASOIAF, X-Men, Bakker, Wolfe). The previews for this look so fucking stupid. What is the appeal? I admit I have no knowledge whatsoever of the original story. I'm not trolling to talk shit. But this looks like it was created by someone who thought there was no point in developing any story and simply wanted to throw in characters in costumes.

Well that just goes to show that looks can be deceiving. While the movie may indeed miss the mark, the graphic novel of the Watchmen is almost universally considered to be the best in the genre, and actually deserving to be thought of as literature. It has a rich, complex story that I won't ruin for you, and the characters are extremely well developed and serve to really deconstruct the superhero mythos.

It's so good that Time magazine listed it as one of the top 100 English language novels (1923 - present).

ETA: LOL - 3 responses and all cite the Time list.

[Anatole Kuragin]

Within the past two weeks I have spread the Watchmen virus to 16 different hosts who all love it.

...unfortunately, this means I have competition as far as who gets to dress up as Rorschach on opening night...

[Fatuous]

Can you guys give me a hand here? I am not the biggest SFF fan in the world even though I love a few choice things (LOTR, ASOIAF, X-Men, Bakker, Wolfe). The previews for this look so fucking stupid. What is the appeal? I admit I have no knowledge whatsoever of the original story. I'm not trolling to talk shit. But this looks like it was created by someone who thought there was no point in developing any story and simply wanted to throw in characters in costumes.

Wow, X-men is choice. I've tried X-men again and again but I just can't see the appeal. It's almost like the creators just forced a group together made of freaks in costumes then gave them trouble based on the fact they are a band of freaks in costumes who fight other freaks in costumes.

Have you ever got the feeling that if the X-Men just didn't advertise that they were mutants then they wouldn't have a tenth of the problems that they have? But then, the book would have little else to go on.

But the topic is Watchmen and you can't judge a book by its movie trailer.

[Ran]

Fatuous,

Have you ever got the feeling that if the X-Men homosexuals just didn't advertise that they were mutants gay then they wouldn't have a tenth of the problems that they have?

Made the parallels more obvious, as a way of explaining why the X-Men as a concept has had an enduring popularity. Its concept can be filtered through a number of different social issues, from teenage uncertainty about the changes to one's body and status, to anti-semitism, to (as above) homosexuality. The basic idea is that just because you're" different" doesn't mean you need to hide shame-faced, and that it's heroic to stand up for yourself.

See here for more.

I don't think there's any X-Men comic run as good or as important as what Moore did with Watchmen.

[Bolton Bastard]

Gotta agree with Ran on this one, Fatuous. You pretty much missed the point.

X-Men was supposed to deal with issues outside violence and to draw a parallel with any social minority. As well have realistic problems faced within the group as really the only thing uniting them was a shared responsibility about mutant kind. And at times it really showed (depict Wolverine who has gotten in a fight with every member ever...)

Now a lot of the time it really failed to show this and just went on weird tangents. But personally, getting a good X-Men story can be more fulfilling than any other main comic (except a Joker story of course, let's be realistic here)

[Ser Hot Pie]

I don't think there's any X-Men comic run as good or as important as what Moore did with Watchmen.

You could say that about pretty much any title, but the Claremont/Byrne run is still pretty damn good.

[davos]

Can you guys give me a hand here? I am not the biggest SFF fan in the world even though I love a few choice things (LOTR, ASOIAF, X-Men, Bakker, Wolfe). The previews for this look so fucking stupid. What is the appeal? I admit I have no knowledge whatsoever of the original story. I'm not trolling to talk shit. But this looks like it was created by someone who thought there was no point in developing any story and simply wanted to throw in characters in costumes.

All I can say is read the book. Its not just a great comic book/graphic novel, its not just great sci-fi/fantasy, its great literature. I don't mean just give it a quick once through, though that may give you some idea of what's going on. Its worth taking your time and paying attention Take the time to look at the graphic part of the book, not just as illustrations of the story, but as an intergral part of the text. there is a great deal in the art itself that deepens and enriches the story. Its one of the fullest realizations of the graphic novel concept, with the text and the art working together to make a complete whole. There is a great deal going on here, not just to add needless depth and complexity but that adds meaning to the story. One gets the sense in reading this that every word was thought out, every panel carefully considered, that no moment is wasted. There are very few works that achieve as much as Watchmen does, regardless of the format.

[Elrostar]

Wow, I had no idea that this was so well-respected.

Here's a follow-up question: How widely known is the book? Or another way of putting it is to what extent can the movie rely on readers of the graphic novel vs. just getting people interested from the previews?

I guess they're counting on some cross-over appeal from its director having done 300 as well. Which is sort of odd, when you think about it, since that's a completely different thing. Certainly not "art" in the same way at all.

But this really is literature, and damn fine literature at that. I'm rereading it at the moment, taking the time to notice all the subtleties again. It is mighty mighty fine.

The only thing I can think of that might compare to it is Neil Gaiman's Sandman series. While that has some magnificent aspects to it, I don't feel it's nearly as well structured or uniformly as well thought out. It starts out a lot rockier than Watchmen, and while it's compelling it's not really on the same level.

But well worth a read, certainly. However, I'd read Watchmen first. In fact, I'd go reach Watchmen right now. Today. Buy it this very instant. You will not regret it.

[Ser Hot Pie]

Wow, I had no idea that this was so well-respected.

Here's a follow-up question: How widely known is the book? Or another way of putting it is to what extent can the movie rely on readers of the graphic novel vs. just getting people interested from the previews?

I think it's known more by reputation than actual readership. I gave a copy to my sister's boyfriend for X-Mas, because he wanted to check it out in advance of the movie, and because he'd heard that it was good. After reading it he said, "I had no idea it would be this good. I mean, it's a comic book." I think that a lot of people have that bias. They may have heard of it, and heard good things about it, but would not be inclined to pick it up (but may be more inclined now that it's a movie).

[Ran]

Ser Hot Pie,

Oh, of course. Some real classics there -- "Days of Future Past" and the "Dark Phoenix Saga" of course. And though Byrne wasn't involved, Claremont's story for "God Loves, Man Kills" is a classic, _and_ a good example of the social revelance of the comic through the decades.

Also Morrison's run, and I've always been fond of just about anything Peter David's done with the X-books.

Re: Watchmen,

It's almost certainly the most widely read superhero-genre graphic novel. It is a perennial seller, and the collection has sold, I figure, at least a million copies since it was first published (it seems to have steadily sold in the tens of thousands every year -- it has real legs). Since the first Watchmen trailer, DC has printed over a million copies -- and they're selling.

It's more well-known than A Song of Ice and Fire, certainly. More well-known, and more widely read I suspect (at least in the U.S.) than the The Wheel of Time.

[Harlot]

Having just completed a re-read, I agree with all these. It really is that good. Go buy it, Trisk. Having for the most part fell out of reading comics in the last 10 years or so, I enjoyed it immensely more as an adult than I did as a teenager.

[G'Kar]

Triskele,

Read Watchmen now. It is good shit! I wouldn't elevate into the ranks of great novels, but it is definitely the best graphic novel ever.

The movie will probably suck.

That is all.

[Fatuous]

Fatuous,

Made the parallels more obvious, as a way of explaining why the X-Men as a concept has had an enduring popularity. Its concept can be filtered through a number of different social issues, from teenage uncertainty about the changes to one's body and status, to anti-semitism, to (as above) homosexuality. The basic idea is that just because you're" different" doesn't mean you need to hide shame-faced, and that it's heroic to stand up for yourself.

I didn't say I didn't understand the hamfisted metaphor {its misuse and abuse depends on the writer in question}, I don't see the appeal of the basic idea as a superhero comic. "I am different, I am special, I am starring in a thousand comics starting with the letter X, all based on the same theme".

I don't see it. One issue, a limited series maybe but at some point, you have to stop.

"Hide shamed face", your metaphor fails here. As I said previously, you got your other mutants who not only enjoy being different, they want to "kill all humans" or something {If they're mutants then they're humans. If they're not humans then they're a whole different species}. Another problem is that the X-Men promote their brand of equality by seperating themselves from both human and mutants by dressing up in costumes and fighting for human/mutant equality.

And "Advertise" = wear costumes while the people they fight do the same. It's one thing to say "I don't want to be different", "I am different but I'm not better than you" or "I'm not different, really" or maybe even "I'm so much better than you" if it's justified, it's a lot harder to do that with a straight face while wearing clinging, yellow colored spandex.

I did enjoy Marvels's splitting of hairs which super powered heroes get to be called mutants and which ones are not mutants. A lot of wring of hands and gnashing of teeth on that issue, if only for the sake of the X-Men series.

I do love the fact that this is being debated in a thread about a story that has costumed vigilantes who wear costumes and masks to hide their identity while fighting for their beliefs. Except for Dr. Manhattan...

[Ran]

Well, I admit, the million X-books leaves me scratching my head, but different strokes for different folks. *shrugs*

There are good stories to be had within the concept, and there's still a lot of room. The metaphor of the mutant is very pliable and skillful creators are able to put a lot of different, interesting spins on it. Hence, it's popular.