Watchmen Prequels in the Works

[Psychotime]

It's been over 20 years, but DC is about to make Watchmen prequels. (http://shelf-life.ew.com/2012/02/01/watchmen-prequels-exclusive-details/) Of course Moore has nothing to do with it.

My initial reaction is NO, but it could be ok, I guess. They don't seem to be trying to drop the ball by putting anyone stupid on it. At least I don't think so.

So far the people set up are Amanda Conner, Darwyn Cooke, Brian Azzraello, Lee Bermejo*, J.G. Jones*, Adam Hughes, Andy and Joe Kubert, Len Wein*, and Jae Lee*.

* I have no idea who that is.

[Psychotime]

http://www.tgdaily.com/entertainment/61177-beyond-watchmen-covers-released-moore-comments

More info and Moore's reaction.

"I tend to take this latest development as a kind of eager confirmation that [DC is] still apparently dependent on ideas that I had 25 years ago," Moore said. "[No], I don't want money. What I want is for this not to happen. As far as I know, there weren't that many prequels or sequels to Moby Dick."

It's one thing for ANOTHER person to compare his work to Moby Dick or similarly lauded work, but I think a line's been crossed when the creator himself is the one saying it.

I'm interested in the Minutemen one, I must admit. The first Nite Owl was the best character of the entire story.

DC's new logo is still terrible.

[wiggum]

Well, based on the covers alone, and a few of the names attached, this might not be that bad. I can certainly understand Moore's frustration and I don't think arrogance is necessarily a bad thing on his part, but sometimes it seems like he is a bit of drama queen.

[Aly Fell]

That TG article is a load of crap. Moore's not comparing himself to Herman Melville, he's not that arrogant, but he's also aware enough to realise the impact 'Watchmen' had on comics. If Moore is 'coming off' as unhinged, it's because he is frustrated legitimately with an industry that is becoming increasingly more inward looking and anal, as is cinema, at a time when it should be more progressive. An industry he helped to reinvent when it was becoming staid and sterile. It also uses the Oz books as an example of publishing companies 'foisting' product on the consumer. Oz was created by Frank Baum, and he was entitled to do exactly what he wanted with the idea. Somebody who I feel knew exactly when to stop was Bill Waterson who created Calvin and Hobbes, and as a result C&H remain timeless and wonderful. Watchmen unfortunately doesn't have the same position as C&H, so can be adulterated to the nth degree.

In the history of shit ideas this one is quite high on the scoreboard. Some things should just be left to stand alone.

[Psychotime]

The quote came from an interview the New York Times had.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/01/books/dc-comics-plans-prequels-to-watchmen-series.html?_r=2

I can see your reasoning with the Calvin and Hobbes example.