Just discovered Watchmen

silvine

After watching Batman last week I was curious about other big comics are coming to the cinema. Then I heard about the Watchman. I watched the trailer online and discovered Time magazine reckons it's one the 100 best novels of all time (a comic book!).

I'm not sure if it will make a good film (the costumes look cheesy) but that opening line about the world burning is fantastic. I went around a few book shops last Friday, to find it was sold out everywhere. One guy told me I was the 20th person to come in that day looking for it. Finally, I got my hands on a copy today. I was a little embarased buying a comic but the guy behind the counter told me it's one of the best out there.

Is it and how old were people here when they read it for the first time? No spoilers please!;)

ztoical

silvine wrote: »

Is it and how old were people here when they read it for the first time? No spoilers please!;)

Watchmen is one of the graphic novels I regularly rec' to non comic heads to read [along with Maus, Batman Dark Victory, and Joe Sacco's work] I hope you won't be embarrassed to look into picking up some more comics [if it makes you feel better Maus won a Pulitzer Prize] V for Vendetta is by the same writer and is often mentioned along with Watchmen thou I found people tend to like which every one of them they read first and can be slightly disappointed with the other [thou I wasn't]

I read V for Vendetta first when I was around 17 I think. I'd been reading the likes of X-men and batman since I was 9 but never ventured outside of those comics for a long time. A friend forced V for Vendetta on me and I read Watchmen pretty soon after.

Fysh

Hi silvine, welcome to the forum! Your story is apparently all-too-common these days, a lot of comic shops are reporting that they're selling the same number of copies of the Watchmen TPB in a day as they used to in a month, thanks in no small part to the teaser trailer being run before Dark Knight.

If you're new to comics, don't let your preconceptions about the visuals throw you - Watchmen is most definitely one of the best comics ever made. I first read it about 5 years ago, but I pick it up and read it again every once in a while. There are so many little details about the story and the setting that you can miss out first time around that it's a really enjoyable read.

ztoical

Fysh wrote: »

but I pick it up and read it again every once in a while. There are so many little details about the story and the setting that you can miss out first time around that it's a really enjoyable re ad.

I had a few of the editors at DC tell me they re-read Watchmen once a year ever year - its like a tradition for them.

chin_grin

Reading it at the moment and gotta say you're in for quite the story! I just hope the movie lives up to the comic.

Don't be ashamed for buying an acceptable medium! Just read it and be amazed!

chalad07

I'm in the same boat as the OP really. I've often heard that Watchmen was worth a read, even for people who dont like comics. I'm going to try and track it down over the weekend,

Excuse my ignornance, i'm never even picked up a comic!: do you guys like it from a storyline point of view, or from the visual. I read a lot of books, so story/plot/characters would be important to me. Not sure if the pictures are going to float my boat.

Am i barking up the wrong tree with something like watch men? Should i stick to the books? I do have an open mind though so i suppose i'll give it shot!

Earthhorse

Read it for the first time a few years ago. Not as taken with it as most are. It's impressive in scope and some of the writing is great but not all the characters appealed to me. V For Vendata (which I read after) was much better in my opinion. However, I am in the minority when it comes to my opinion of Watchmen.

Fysh wrote: »

...a lot of comic shops are reporting that they're selling the same number of copies of the Watchmen TPB in a day as they used to in a month, thanks in no small part to the teaser trailer being run before Dark Knight.

That's pretty incredible. No matter what way I spin it that's pretty incredible. Just shows you the power of marketing.

Fysh

chalad07 wrote: »

Excuse my ignornance, i'm never even picked up a comic!: do you guys like it from a storyline point of view, or from the visual. I read a lot of books, so story/plot/characters would be important to me. Not sure if the pictures are going to float my boat.

I think the great strength of Watchmen in particular, and a lot of Alan Moore's work in general, is that the writing behind the visuals is much stronger than the reader might expect if they have only a general awareness of the conventions of superhero comics.

If you're a fan of good writing, you're in for a treat with this book. The storyline is epic in scope, the characters are wonderfully nuanced, and the whole thing is pieced together so meticulously that it's just utter joy to read. There are any number of literary devices put into play so effectively that you can read it the first time to enjoy it, a second time to analyse how it's put together, a third time to appreciate how the art complements the writing, and still have scope for plenty of re-reading for sheer pleasure.

JangoFett

silvine wrote: »

I was a little embarased buying a comic but the guy behind the counter told me it's one of the best out there.

Is it and how old were people here when they read it for the first time? No spoilers please!;)

Embarrassed buying a comic?

Really? How old are you?

I started collecting comics when I was 17 and had been reading casually since I was about 11 or so...reading other peoples comics like!

shenanigans1982

Its hard to get a proper opinion on Watchmen from comic book fans....too many of them seem to think the sun shines out of Alan Moores ass (not getting at anyone here, just the general opinion I seem to find.). But if Time is mentioning it then it must be better than the majority of stuff.

Fysh

shenanigans1982 wrote: »

Its hard to get a proper opinion on Watchmen from comic book fans....too many of them seem to think the sun shines out of Alan Moores ass (not getting at anyone here, just the general opinion I seem to find.). But if Time is mentioning it then it must be better than the majority of stuff.

......

I'm in two minds about this comment, because on the one hand you're right that there is a lot of fanthink in comics circles which leads to people blindly insisting that things are either great or awful and insisting that there can be no amicable disagreement.

On the other hand, I've consistently found that Alan Moore's work is very very good, and I mean that separately to the fact that I've enjoyed most if not all of his work that I've read. In terms of craftmanship he's a very competent author, and I do think that Watchmen in particular is a piece of work where even if you don't particularly like the story you can appreciate the finesse with which it is weaved.

Now I'm not by any means saying that everyone has to enjoy his work, but I do think that denying the skill underpinning his work would be at the least disingenuous. It's one thing to not particularly like someone's work, quite another to say they don't have any talent.

ztoical

shenanigans1982 wrote: »

Its hard to get a proper opinion on Watchmen from comic book fans....too many of them seem to think the sun shines out of Alan Moores ass (not getting at anyone here, just the general opinion I seem to find.). But if Time is mentioning it then it must be better than the majority of stuff.

Time rec'ing it would actually be more likely to put me off a comic, any of those top 10 comic lists they've done have been pretty lacking in depth and thought and show little understanding of the medium. Spiegelman's Maus, which was given a Pulitzer prize, is missing from the Time list along with any work by Kirby, Eisner, Panter, Crumb and Kurtzman all of whom were honored in the exhibition "Masters of American Comics" - only Chris Ware made the Time list. Watchmen is also the oldest comic on the list and its only 20 years old - what about all the amazing underground comics of the 70's or the comics revolution of the 60's? better yet were is Windsor McCay's Little Nemo made in 1905 its still one of the most highly praised comics.

I would count myself as neither a lover nor a hater of Moore's work - I do rate both Watchmen and V for Vendetta highly but its due to reading them and forming my opinion on that but I'm not really a fan of any of his other work. There are plenty of comics out there that are highly rated that I think are utter pants - like Blankets [which is also listed on the Time comic list]

You'll always get the people who love something just cus everyone else said it was good [certainly found that with Blankets when a number of people who told me it was great admitted to not having actually read the book] and the people who'll hate it just cus so many people like it [the hipsters, burn them!]. I like watchmen cus I think its both well written and well drawn and I think the marriage between the writing and the art works very well. I think its sophisticated in the storytelling both with the visual language and the written word. I also think its accessible to both long time comic readers and people new to the medium. Most importantly I think it has meat, its not something you'll just pick up and flick through in 20 mins [which is my main issue with Blankets] and has Fysh said you will read and re-read it and still find more in it.

You also have to look at it in context - of the 10 comics listed on times best comic books 7 of them were published after 2000. The three not from '00 are Watchmen , Dark Knight returns [also '86] and Ed the happy clown - comics like watchmen just weren't being made then and it really made people sit up and take notice and alot of current comic creators owe it alot.

Watchmen is held in high regard not just by comic fans but within the comics industry - when it was first being published as a limited series artists/writers/random comic people who normally fed ex'd their stuff in would drop by the DC offices on the off chance that the next issues script/pencils had come in to go to print, they were that desperate to read the next section.

magwea

The Times list which is here, is OK if slightly narrow in scope, for a more rounded list check out the descent Comic Journal's Top 100 list. It definitely has its faults but its a good place to start if your interested in a wide range of comics, and not simply the flavour of the month tasty as it is.

Patrick Brown

Alan Moore does indeed have a towering reputation among comics fans, but I thnk you'll probably find Watchmen is the reason he has that reputation. It's a virtuoso piece of work, and shows off Moore's skill and cleverness as a writer better than anything else he's done.

He's done other books, like the later parts of Miracleman and Swamp Thing, where he's tried to be as clever, but tried too hard, and the result is clunky and pretentious. He's done stuff that's lighter, less self-consciously impressive. But Watchmen is one book where his skill and his ambition match each other.

It's very much of its time, with the Cold War setting and the very 80s visual design, but being of its time doesn't hurt Catch 22 or Spartacus, and I don't think it hurts Watchmen.

Mr. K

I don't think I've ever read anything bad by Alan Moore, but I've only read a couple of things. Watchmen and V For Vendetta are both excellent, I'd say I slightly prefer Watchmen. I think those of us who've read it will enjoy the movie more too, while it wasn't neccessary for V For Vendetta.

silvine

I've only read a few pages so far. I'll post back here when I'm done and let you know what I think of it.

chalad07

Fysh wrote: »

I think the great strength of Watchmen in particular, and a lot of Alan Moore's work in general, is that the writing behind the visuals is much stronger than the reader might expect if they have only a general awareness of the conventions of superhero comics.

If you're a fan of good writing, you're in for a treat with this book. The storyline is epic in scope, the characters are wonderfully nuanced, and the whole thing is pieced together so meticulously that it's just utter joy to read. There are any number of literary devices put into play so effectively that you can read it the first time to enjoy it, a second time to analyse how it's put together, a third time to appreciate how the art complements the writing, and still have scope for plenty of re-reading for sheer pleasure.

Cheers mate, you've convinced me! I'll pick it up over the weekend,

To be honest, my main worry would be that it would be short on storyline, but as it's so well regarded it must be doing something right,

If i like this i'll be back looking for more recomendations:) Thanks lads,

ghouldaddy07

read it over the last few days having not read a comic in about 15 years and found it absolutly astounding.

The overall theme and dark humor and dept moore gives the concept are epic and while i doubt the film can possibly capture the dept that is watchmen I have to thank to the trailer of it for introducing me to such an excelent story.

p.s rorshack is the greatest thing since sliced bread and I am an advocate of said bread

superfly

wow i reckon its 20 years since i first read it and have read it several times since
actually i think i could be one of those people trying to find a copy of it in the shops

silvine

Finished the Watchmen recently. It's a brilliant work and a captivating read but there are a few plot holes. And it's a slightly dated work too, thanks to the politics If it were written today, would it be as well received? Probably not.

Rorscach and the Comedian were great characters (

a murder and a rapist)

. The novel really turns the whole idea of superheros on its head through drugs, sex, no super powers etc. It's also a nice satire on the commercialisation of superheroes. Shea's graphic novel was nearly as good as the main story. The artwork for the main character was great e.g. the raft, the shark etc.

Now the ending:

I loved that the only things the so called heroes did was fail to stop Veidt saving the world. Jon becoming a God was great too.And, Robert Redford running for president? A very nice dig at Regan.

However, the genetically engineered monster seemed very out of the blue and last minute. And there wasn't much detail/background provided about Veidt until the last chapter. Another scene with Nixon would have been nice, considering there was one with him in with the nuclear football.

Also did Shea blow up the boat and if so why?

I've read a few people saying it's unfilmable. After Lord of the Rings, I don't see why. The only thing I could see them taking out is the Shea comic (like poor Tom Bombabdil). The rest I can easily see making it to the screen - unless stuff is removed for editorial reasons.

Fysh

silvine wrote: »

Finished the Watchmen recently. It's a brilliant work and a captivating read but there are a few plot holes. And it's a slightly dated work too, thanks to the politics If it were written today, would it be as well received? Probably not.

It is dated, but then again it was addressing concerns of its time and has thus become part of the cultural canon. You could argue that the likes of Black Summer or Identity Crisis were attempts to deconstruct the contemporary superhero in a similar vein, but I don't think either of them were anywhere near as complex, layered or thematically well-developed as Watchmen. If it were written today, it wouldn't be the same story because it would address today's concerns rather than those of the mid-80's.

silvine wrote: »

Now the ending:

However, the genetically engineered monster seemed very out of the blue and last minute. And there wasn't much detail/background provided about Veidt until the last chapter. Another scene with Nixon would have been nice, considering there was one with him in with the nuclear football.

Also did Shea blow up the boat and if so why?

I'd argue that the monster was unexpected but still foreshadowed - in fairness to Moore, there's not a lot you can do to explicitly hint at a genetically-engineered creature like that without giving it away too soon and spoiling the intrigue that the story is built on. Similarly, getting into a detailed view of Veidt too early would have given away his plans and thus robbed the story of its momentum.

As for the boat being blown up, I'd always assumed Veidt had rigged the ship to explode and kill everyone associated with the film project to ensure that they couldn't reveal his secret upon implementation of the plan.

silvine wrote: »

I've read a few people saying it's unfilmable. After Lord of the Rings, I don't see why. The only thing I could see them taking out is the Shea comic (like poor Tom Bombabdil). The rest I can easily see making it to the screen - unless stuff is removed for editorial reasons.

The problem with it isn't so much "can it be filmed" as "can it be filmed in a way that preserves the essence of the comic"? Moore has pointed out that things like the symmetrical issue and some of the panel transitions (among other things) were deliberately engineered to show off what you could do in comics that you couldn't do in prose or film. I'm not saying it's impossible to do so, but it would take a lot of ingenuity to adapt them without compromising their purpose or the integrity of the material - especially when we're over 20 years on from the story's original publication and audience sensibilities are significantly changed from what they would have been at the time it was written.

That being said, I will happily give Snyder's film a chance if/when it gets released next year because even if I end up hating his film, I'll still be able to go back and read (and enjoy) the comic again.

niall mc cann

silvine wrote: »

Now the ending:

I loved that the only things the so called heroes did was fail to stop Veidt saving the world.

I feel what they really failed to do was

bring to justice one of the most dangerous, pychopathic mass murderers in history. And why? 'cause he beat them in a fistfight? 'cause he's got a good line in spin doctoring? He was a nasty piece of work and they agreed to let him get away with it. nasty.

:Keith:

niall mc cann wrote: »

I feel what they really failed to do was

bring to justice one of the most dangerous, pychopathic mass murderers in history. And why? 'cause he beat them in a fistfight? 'cause he's got a good line in spin doctoring? He was a nasty piece of work and they agreed to let him get away with it. nasty.

Depends on your ethical view I think. We're all heard the saying that the good of the many outweighs the good of the few. So Veidt ended up killing a few million to ensure the entire planet wouldn't die if the US and Russia ended up in a situation of MAD. Veidt had the best of intentions but he's cold and uncaring. That's the beauty of all the characters in Watchmen they're flawed and that makes them realistic in a way.

GenghisCon

Excuse me for dropping in...couldn't resist giving my 2 cents worth.

What I've always enjoyed about watchmen is the Irony that in the end the villain of the piece saves the day in a way none of the other heroes could. Rorschach, nite owl and the rest in their efforts to uncover the truth about the recent murders were unable to effect the wider threat of nuclear war. In the end they were ineffectual and the scenario would have played out the same regardless of their involvement. They were (literally) powerless to avenge those who died at Veidt's hands. Despite being a god on Earth, Dr Manhattan was aloof and cold and may not have been able to (or willing) to intervene if it came to nuclear war. However he saw the horrible logic of Veidt's plan and was himself powerless to stop it. Despite certainly playing the role of the bad guy and murderer Veidt ultimately saved more people than the others could ever hope to. A perfect study of the end justifying the means.

Phew.. now that thats off my chest I can go back to this months archie

Earthhorse

But...

Isn't it heavily hinted at that due to Rorschach's diary turning up in the right (or wrong) place Viedt's plan would essentially unravel so despite his careful planning and execution the end wouldn't justify the means?

Also, do we have to talk about this using spoilers?

Fysh

I'd prefer to continue the use of spoiler tags for the time being please - I knwo that most of us have already read the book, but given the movie's looming release there are a lot of people picking it up for the first time at the moment so I'd prefer not to have them inadvertently read the ending without realising.

As for the ending itself;

I thought it was a wonderful stalemate that underscored the fundamental futility of the brand of vigilanteism that so many superhero comics are built on. As Jon says, "In the end? Nothing ever ends". Veidt appears to have succesfully used the deaths of 3 million people to avert a nuclear war, but then Rorschach may succeed in revealing his plan if the Nova Express guys actually take his journal seriously and publish it. One way or another Veidt's actions have monstruous costs, but are still preferable to a global nuclear apocalypse.

Fundamentally, though, how can any of us expect to truly make a decision of that magnitude being stuck as we are in the bodies of single individuals and unable to even conceive of the idea of billions of individual humans? Veidt tried to transcend his human limitations and act in the manner of and on the scale of gods, but the fact that he is human let him down and he failed to take to account that the world would still exist after his plan came to fruition, and all those small, scared, petty people who'd led to the problem in the first place would still populate it. At best he's staved off Armageddon at the cost of 3 million brutal deaths; at worst he's contributed to it and in fact added to the risk of nuclear war - who knows how Russia would react to the news that the "alien attack" on New York was in fact staged by a succesful American entrepeneour?

niall mc cann

:Keith: wrote: »

Depends on your ethical view I think. We're all heard the saying that the good of the many outweighs the good of the few. So Veidt ended up killing a few million to ensure the entire planet wouldn't die if the US and Russia ended up in a situation of MAD. Veidt had the best of intentions but he's cold and uncaring. That's the beauty of all the characters in Watchmen they're flawed and that makes them realistic in a way.

That'd be how Veidt would sell it, sure, but it doesn't take into account that he actively pushed the world towards MAD. It also doesn't take into account the chapter that focuses on Veidt himself- he wasn't acting out of compassion or beneficence; he wanted to outdo Alexander the Great, that's all. Look at his reaction when the word comes in that the sabre-rattling has stopped- that's absolutely not the reaction of a man who just completed an unpleasant task well, it's pure elation.

A man (The Comedian) Veidt didn't like (and would later murder in cold blood) told him there was a problem that he couldn't solve. Veidt accepted the challenge and murdered 3 million people to prove him wrong.

:Keith:

You've some very good points there. I must read it again with that line of thinking and see what I think of it.

Richv1

From the trailer I've seen I think the movie will be great. I doubt it will be as good as the comic version but still even half as much will still make for one fantastic movie.
I read the comic series when it first came out and it was and is still the best one I have ever read.


Richard Vasseur
www.jazmaonline.com