Re: Get ready for Watchmen 2!

Ummm, wrong company BTW. DC's got Watchmen, it's up to Marvel to release Miracleman (and according to all signs, we're going to start seeing Miracleman stuff this summer)

Oh, yeah, whatever. Same author getting screwed over.

Anyway, yeah the last I heard was that Marvel only had the rights to the Mick Anglo stuff and don't yet have any pull on the Alan Moore material?
 
Re: Get ready for Watchmen 2!

Oh, yeah, whatever. Same author getting screwed over.

Anyway, yeah the last I heard was that Marvel only had the rights to the Mick Anglo stuff and don't yet have any pull on the Alan Moore material?

Wow, bitter much? Moore came to an agreement with Marvel over his run before Marvel even announced it. He'll allow reprints of his run if Anglo got the money, he also let it slip that Marvel's looks at over venues for Miracleman (he mentioned something about animation).


I'm veering terribly off topic here, but do you have a source? Any word on the logo situation? Last I heard there was a potential problem with the fact that Todd McFarlane had a legitimate claim to the trademark on the redesigned logo.

Not sure about the logo thing, but if i recall correctly, McFarland holds no rights that would interfere (i'll have to find the legal crap after the McFarland v Gaiman stuff). As to the source, I know someone who handles ordering for Borders corporate and Marvel has a "Project: MM" listed for Q3 2010. Plus, the whole Heroic Age thing kinda smells of introducing something big and new.


Edit: Tho... upon thinking more, Project: MM could be something to do with Mickey Mouse, so the whole Miracleman reprints should still be listed as "a rumor".
 
Last edited:
Re: Get ready for Watchmen 2!

Wow, bitter much?

No? :?

Sorry if I seemed to be.

Moore came to an agreement with Marvel over his run before Marvel even announced it. He'll allow reprints of his run if Anglo got the money, he also let it slip that Marvel's looks at over venues for Miracleman (he mentioned something about animation).

Thanks. :)
 
Re: Get ready for Watchmen 2!

and doing research, the only remaining legal hurdle for reprints seems to involve Kid Miracleman.
 
Re: Get ready for Watchmen 2!

and doing research, the only remaining legal hurdle for reprints seems to involve Kid Miracleman.

Do you know what specifically? Because that character was part of the Anglo stuff.
 
Re: Get ready for Watchmen 2!

I can't find it again, so it may have been someone arm chair lawyering. I just remember reading after the Marvel announcement, that there was some sort of ownership issues about Kid Miracleman and Miraclewoman, but I can't find it. I could have been hallucinating.



Also, after double checking, McFarland lost every legal challenge when it came to the whole Miracleman/Eclipse fiasco, he holds zero rights to anything pertaining to MM.
 
Re: Get ready for Watchmen 2!

I never saw the first movie. If they make a sequel, I might see it just to see what it's about.

But the entire idea of an adaptation ruining the original work is stupid. The original always keeps the same amount of artistic merit, no matter how many times it's adapted or parodied. Can the the adaptation prove inferior? Sure. Can the adaptation change the popular perception? Why not.

But change the artistic integrity of the original? Impossible. It will always be as valid as before the movie deals.
 
Re: Get ready for Watchmen 2!

I never saw the first movie. If they make a sequel, I might see it just to see what it's about.

But the entire idea of an adaptation ruining the original work is stupid. The original always keeps the same amount of artistic merit, no matter how many times it's adapted or parodied. Can the the adaptation prove inferior? Sure. Can the adaptation change the popular perception? Why not.

But change the artistic integrity of the original? Impossible. It will always be as valid as before the movie deals.

I have to agree with you on this. How many times to we as geeks scream that a sequel, reimagining, or reboot will "ruin" the original. Let's get serious though, for the many people who claimed Batman Begins ruined Batman '89 (and strangely there's a lot of them), it's not like your copy of the original, or the version you prefer is going to spontaneously combust. Hell, using the Batman example, the original is usually updated to the newest media to cash in on the remake/sequel (case in point, the release of Batman 89 onto Blu-Ray, and the Batman Ultimate Collection onto Blu-Ray).
 
Re: Get ready for Watchmen 2!

It's funny how rarely you see this argument with other forms of art. No one seemed to scream corruption of the arts when Mona Lisa Smiles, despite how little it was related to the famous painting. I just think there is just so long with the geek culture - I mean, stupid controversies like every continuity debates for the Marvel and DC, Star Wars and Star Trek. Does it really matter if Han shot first? It's such a minor, insignificant, detail, but there is such a rage over it.

It's sickening, really.

Now, there is some comparisons to some other art forms. You could definitely argue EA's Dante's Inferno is a mockery of the original poem, but these examples are so few and far between. Why is it that Geeks always seem to cry "corruption of the arts!" but the admirers of much more legitimate mediums almost never do? I'm just baffled.
 
Re: Get ready for Watchmen 2!

It's funny how rarely you see this argument with other forms of art. No one seemed to scream corruption of the arts when Mona Lisa Smiles, despite how little it was related to the famous painting. I just think there is just so long with the geek culture - I mean, stupid controversies like every continuity debates for the Marvel and DC, Star Wars and Star Trek. Does it really matter if Han shot first? It's such a minor, insignificant, detail, but there is such a rage over it.

It's sickening, really.

Now, there is some comparisons to some other art forms. You could definitely argue EA's Dante's Inferno is a mockery of the original poem, but these examples are so few and far between. Why is it that Geeks always seem to cry "corruption of the arts!" but the admirers of much more legitimate mediums almost never do? I'm just baffled.

These things come up from time to time in literature. Bram Stoker's grand-nephew or some relative in that vein released a sequel to Dracula that was pretty atrocious. JD Salinger was all up in arms about some dude writing a sequel to Catcher in the Rye. I think there's a few reasons for this. The first is, comics are a younger and less secure medium. It's a form still gaining artistic legitimacy, at least in the eyes of the public. So when a property like Watchmen gains a level of credibility with the general public, fans don't want to lose that. There's the sense that either people will read the sequels first and assume the original product is purile if the sequel is a failure or that outsiders will just turn up their noses and say "Look at these silly children making a sequel". I think the integrity of the property is an issue. While the story itself will retain its integrity, trying to franchise it could bloat and distill the general perception. A book like, say, Dracula has been around long enough and gathered enough prestige that practically anyone who sees a sequel to it will just point and laugh and it won't hurt the credibility of the original. That might not be the case with something like Watchmen where people will see a slew of books and action figures and movies and just think "Oh. Another silly comic book superhero".

Another issue is that this thing is just less likely to happen in novelist prose, where the characters and story are owned by the writer. By the time the characters enter public domain, the book has either acquired a legacy or been forgotten. I think literary snobs would throw a fit if Dean Koontz tried to write Lolita 2: The Molestering or Dan Brown took a crack at The More Satanic Verses.

But when it really comes down to it, I don't think it's an issue of expanded continuity hurting the integrity of the original franchise. It's just a frustration that lies in "Why would they do that? How conceptually bankrupt are these people really?" And that's something that comes up in film and TV all the time. Whether it's Jaws terrorizing Seaworld or Saw 19 or 24 in an eighth season after any suspension of disbelief is gone or more generically just a glut of vampire/western/sci-fi/whatever-the-current-trend-happens-to-be movies. I think, at the heart of it, it's less a worry that the new books will somehow make the original weaker so much as it is a frustration that whatever corporation is feeding us our media is just trying to milk us for dollars instead of creating something genuine and fresh.
 
Re: Get ready for Watchmen 2!

These things come up from time to time in literature. Bram Stoker's grand-nephew or some relative in that vein released a sequel to Dracula that was pretty atrocious. JD Salinger was all up in arms about some dude writing a sequel to Catcher in the Rye. I think there's a few reasons for this. The first is, comics are a younger and less secure medium. It's a form still gaining artistic legitimacy, at least in the eyes of the public. So when a property like Watchmen gains a level of credibility with the general public, fans don't want to lose that. There's the sense that either people will read the sequels first and assume the original product is purile if the sequel is a failure or that outsiders will just turn up their noses and say "Look at these silly children making a sequel". I think the integrity of the property is an issue. While the story itself will retain its integrity, trying to franchise it could bloat and distill the general perception. A book like, say, Dracula has been around long enough and gathered enough prestige that practically anyone who sees a sequel to it will just point and laugh and it won't hurt the credibility of the original. That might not be the case with something like Watchmen where people will see a slew of books and action figures and movies and just think "Oh. Another silly comic book superhero".

Another issue is that this thing is just less likely to happen in novelist prose, where the characters and story are owned by the writer. By the time the characters enter public domain, the book has either acquired a legacy or been forgotten. I think literary snobs would throw a fit if Dean Koontz tried to write Lolita 2: The Molestering or Dan Brown took a crack at The More Satanic Verses.

But when it really comes down to it, I don't think it's an issue of expanded continuity hurting the integrity of the original franchise. It's just a frustration that lies in "Why would they do that? How conceptually bankrupt are these people really?" And that's something that comes up in film and TV all the time. Whether it's Jaws terrorizing Seaworld or Saw 19 or 24 in an eighth season after any suspension of disbelief is gone or more generically just a glut of vampire/western/sci-fi/whatever-the-current-trend-happens-to-be movies. I think, at the heart of it, it's less a worry that the new books will somehow make the original weaker so much as it is a frustration that whatever corporation is feeding us our media is just trying to milk us for dollars instead of creating something genuine and fresh.

The integrity of any property is an issue, and it is one that is worth preserving, so long as the work is worth it. Watchmen is one of those (few) pieces of artistic integrity within comics that are equal to the trouble we will have to go through to keep it's integrity. However, and I suppose I had to make this more clear in my last post, I wasn't referring to just the issue with Watchmen and it's possible sequel. I was referring to geekdom in general.

How many times have you seen a forum post about something that is just, all things considered, worthless and juvenile? Soem post arguing about continuity, or about how some producer changed a scene, or even the uproar that a movie isn't 100% loyal to a comic.

Guys, this happens all of the time in the other mediums, but you never hear any of them complain. I just find it infuriating how us geeks seem to want to waste our time on such stupid, banal things. Honestly, who gives a flying **** if Han shot first? It doesn't make a ******* difference! The movie is still just as good, just as brilliant, as before! We geeks seem to be of the idea that if we make as many arguments as possible, we have a better case.

Guys, get a clue: it makes us look worse. We look like children, like brats. The more arguments we present, the more insecure and stupid we look. It just pisses me off to no end, because there are some really good tales woven into our comics, sci-fi movies, and videogames. They would probably be more respected if we didn't ***** about every single damn detail. You rarely see legitimate critics argue like that.
 
Re: Get ready for Watchmen 2!

captaincanuck said:
yeah, but Pitcher in the Wheat turned out to be better than the first one.

Heh. I'd honestly like to read it, but Salinger stopped its publication. I think he may have sued the guy, actually.

Doublehex said:
How many times have you seen a forum post about something that is just, all things considered, worthless and juvenile? Soem post arguing about continuity, or about how some producer changed a scene, or even the uproar that a movie isn't 100% loyal to a comic.

Guys, this happens all of the time in the other mediums, but you never hear any of them complain. I just find it infuriating how us geeks seem to want to waste our time on such stupid, banal things. Honestly, who gives a flying **** if Han shot first? It doesn't make a ******* difference! The movie is still just as good, just as brilliant, as before! We geeks seem to be of the idea that if we make as many arguments as possible, we have a better case.

How self-righteous that is. I felt like my post was hardly just throwing arguments at the wall and seeing what sticks. I believe my arguments there were sound and I'm a little insulted really.

Have you ever been in an argument with film scholars about the classifications of film noir? Because it can be every bit as bitter and silly as any discussion of continuity. Have you been in a grad level literature classroom? There are just as many arguments over frivolous and inconsequential stylistic choices. Film/literature/art/what-have-you junkies aren't any less petty about their arguments than comic fans, and that's really all that geeks really are: huge fans of a particular medium who have a passion for the medium. Perhaps it's more nuanced (although, in many cases, it doesn't seem that way) but I think that all comes down to the level of quality. Fans of Swamp Thing, DMZ, Watchmen, The Invisibles or any of these "prestige" titles are probably less likely to squabble over frivolties than fans of Loeb's Hulk and Johns' Green Lantern but then, it's the same way with Vladimir Nabokov and James Joyce (or, if you want to get "geeky", Kurt Vonnegut and Salman Rushdie) vs. Tom Clancy and Dean Koontz. The reading level generally reflects how big the mouth is. You might arguably make a distinction between those who read for story and those who read for subtext. But regardless, it's not an argument of "geeks vs. non-geeks" unless you spread that net very, very wide.

Then again, I'm not entirely sure what you're trying to argue here. Are you making a distinction between general "high culture" and "low culture" or between comic book fans and fans of other mediums?

Doublehex said:
Guys, get a clue: it makes us look worse. We look like children, like brats. The more arguments we present, the more insecure and stupid we look. It just pisses me off to no end, because there are some really good tales woven into our comics, sci-fi movies, and videogames. They would probably be more respected if we didn't ***** about every single damn detail. You rarely see legitimate critics argue like that.

This is a weird place to be making that sort of self-superior plea. As far as I'm concerned, this forum is one of the most rational and level-headed forums for comic book talk around.
 
Last edited:
Re: Get ready for Watchmen 2!

The undead panda is absolutely right. This argument is nothing like the more petty "Han shot first" that may support Doublehex's claims. Watchmen is one of the few comic books that rises the medium itself. If they chose to make a sequel or prequel to Citizen Kane I bet you if you listened in on professional film critics having that discussion it would be the same as this. I find it odd how Doublehex liken this discussion about preserving the creative integrity of an iconic story supports the idea that geeks are petty individuals squabbling over a "lower" culture material. When really what the opinion that most people are up in arms about is preserving the idea that comics can be higher culture and to completely sell out Watchmen would completely set back that possibility.

I hope that made sense cause I was half paying attention while typing.

So my opinion is that Watchmen should be left as is. The story and mythology is a complete story, there's not real creative or artistic merit to make a sequel/prequel/etc other than to try and squeeze as much cash as possible. Though I recall that one of the 52 universes had charlton characters much like Watchmen. I always that it would be interesting to see stories from that universe. Like make a comic called Charlton which has a bit of a Watchmen vibe and allow writers to do something interesting with those characters without touching the actual Watchmen mythology. Though there is a fine line with that plan.
 
Re: Get ready for Watchmen 2!

The undead panda is absolutely right. This argument is nothing like the more petty "Han shot first" that may support Doublehex's claims. Watchmen is one of the few comic books that rises the medium itself. If they chose to make a sequel or prequel to Citizen Kane I bet you if you listened in on professional film critics having that discussion it would be the same as this. I find it odd how Doublehex liken this discussion about preserving the creative integrity of an iconic story supports the idea that geeks are petty individuals squabbling over a "lower" culture material. When really what the opinion that most people are up in arms about is preserving the idea that comics can be higher culture and to completely sell out Watchmen would completely set back that possibility.

I hope that made sense cause I was half paying attention while typing. So my opinion is that Watchmen should be left as is. The story and mythology is a complete story, there's not real creative or artistic merit to make a sequel/prequel/etc other than to try and squeeze as much cash as possible.

Yeah. That made sense.

Random said:
Though I recall that one of the 52 universes had charlton characters much like Watchmen. I always that it would be interesting to see stories from that universe. Like make a comic called Charlton which has a bit of a Watchmen vibe and allow writers to do something interesting with those characters without touching the actual Watchmen mythology. Though there is a fine line with that plan.

Grant Morrison's Multiversity is going to feature the Charlton universe.
 
Re: Get ready for Watchmen 2!

This argument is nothing like the more petty "Han shot first" that may support Doublehex's claims.

This is much worse as at least that effected the original and changed an important character. This is just "No they are making a new comic :( WHY GOD WHY?" The second been as petty as an argument really can be.
 
Re: Get ready for Watchmen 2!

This from John Byrne's message board via Bleeding Cool:

I was watching a few minutes of the WATCHMEN movie on cable last night, and I found myself musing on the notion of a "prequel" or sequel to the original comicbook series.

In WATCHMEN, Moore inverted — I might say perverted — pretty much everything the superhero genre is all about. He was not the first to do so, but WATCHMEN was the first time we got it all in such a concentrated dose. Largely, this seems to have happened because Moore is very much a one trick pony. The one trick works for him and his fans, so no problem there, I guess. But this got me to thinking about who would be a suitable candidate to produce another round of WATCHMEN.

The thought began to take shape in my head that any revisiting of those characters should be a continuation of the "tradition" of WATCHMEN. That is, as Moore trashed everything superheroes were all about, the next go-round should do the same with WATCHMEN itself. So the ideal candidate for doing the project should be someone who is equally a one trick pony, but from the opposite end of the spectrum. Immediately, one name sprang to the forefront: Rob Liefeld.

No, I'm not kidding. Liefeld would be to WATCHMEN what Moore was to superheroes in general. And it would be such fun to watch a whole flock of retailer's heads exploding, as they tried to serve two entirely different faces of mammon!

I don't know what's funnier - his unintentionally funny notion that Moore is a "one trick pony" who ruined superhero comics, or his intentionally funny idea that Liefeld is ideal to continue the trend.
 
Re: Get ready for Watchmen 2!

I don't know what's funnier - his unintentionally funny notion that Moore is a "one trick pony" who ruined superhero comics, or his intentionally funny idea that Liefeld is ideal to continue the trend.

Well Moore really did set out to destroy everything about superheroes in Watchmen, not incidentally ruin super hero comics and I think that's the point Bryne is making.
 

Latest posts

Back
Top