Well, I guess we shouldn't watch Blazing Saddles or Airplane! or Unforgiven any of the other awesome things that deconstruct their source genres, either! lol

Thats really not fair. A parody is different then a story like the watchmen, which was played in a very serious manner. Those movies are jests, the Watchmen seems like an attack.

And that's fine. However, at the time, that was every other superhero comic out there. I see no problem with one book, with different, nonestablished characters, doing something different.

And if all it was I would agree James. But with Watchmen you get Dark Knight and with Dark Knight you get Killing Joke and that stupidty became canon. I agree there should be adult themed comic books, but not in the guise of a superhero comic. And that is my problem with Watchmen, it is an adult story dressed up as a superhero story.

Randy Sterger wrote: Well, I guess we shouldn't watch Blazing Saddles or Airplane! or Unforgiven any of the other awesome things that deconstruct their source genres, either!

Why would you describe Unforgiven as "deconstructing its source genre?"  It certainly didn't portray the old west, "cowboys," "outlaws," and "lawmen" in the same manner that they were depicted by Roy Rogers and Dale Evans, or in TV shows like Gunsmoke, but Unforgiven DID portray people from a real point in history in a very realistic, believable manner.  I didn't see Unforgiven as deconstructing the ideal of the old west, sherrifs, and outlaws -- I saw Unforgiven as portraying "good guys" and "bad guys" in much the same manner as Stan Lee and Jack Kirby portrayed "good guys" and "bad guys" in their early Marvel comics -- as flawed characters who were ultimately good or evil, but who had the capacity to extend themselves and their actions beyond their base instincts or inclinations.

Given that, I'd say Unforgiven falls more into the "truly realistic" realm, rather than into the "deconstructionist" realm. 

Some things are what they are. Superheroes fall into that category. "Deconstructing" them is shooting fish in a barrel.

Disclaimer #1:I have agreed with JB on some occasions, and disagreed on some. Disagreeing is much more fun, in a "tweaking the giant's nose" kind of way. Juvenile, imature, yes but I am far from a perfect human being.

Disclaimer #2: I'm "old school". I like anthology comics. I like word baloons. I like thought baloons. I like the little yellow boxes at the tops of panels that usually say "meanwhile", or some other narrative. I only like 'Iconic covers' for special issues, Anniversaries, first issues, Annuals, etc.

That said, I found Watchmen to be disappointing. First, I hated the covers. No slam on Dave Gibbons, I just like covers as described above, and I felt the 'smiley face' was a cop-out. Next, the super-heroes were just generic archetypes. Next, the pirate comics stuff seemed forced and just a "I"m so clever, I'll include this parrallel tale (as if it's never been done before), just because I can. Finally, I predicted the ending and was extremely disappointed that a no-talent amateur like me could precog a writer of Alan Moore's stature. For those who've never read it I'll just say, "Everybody gets run over by a truck; The End".

To this day I feel that the hype surrounding Watchmen has convinced us comic fans that Watchmen was great, more than the book itself did. Don't get me wrong, I think it was a decent comic book, but so were the much maligned "Legends" and "Zero Hour". In our society we've become so acustomed to the product not living up it's advance press that when something comes anywhere near what we hoped it would be, we heap praise upon it. Or, if the "right people" say it's good, we lemmings all agree ala "The Emperor's New Clothes". So, at that time, ( that's "back in the day" to you whippersnappers) if 'The Comics Journal' (which had a whole lot more words than pictures, so it must be an intellectual periodical instead of a comic book fanzine) said Watchmen was great, it must be great.

Once again, it wasn't bad but it didn't cure Cancer. The at-the-time-hype then, and the lore now, have exceeded what the product was.

(I didn't care a whole lot for Dark Knight either. As a one-time deal it was okay, but If DK never existing was the price I had to pay for all that it inspired to have never existed, I'd happily pay that price. Sorry Frank, but Marvel Team-Up 100 was much better, and when you draw 'on model' it's just beautiful to me; kind of like a merge of Ditko and Neal Adams.)

One man's opinion, take it with however many grains of salt you feel are appropriate.

Ah, but should all the characters in that book be "different, nonestablishment characters"? Stan Lee didn't cast the Fantastic Four as a team of monsters, or the X-Men as juvenile delinquents.

I actually wrote "nonestablished" characters. But, to answer your question, the concept could make for an interesting book if done well. Stan didn't do that himself, but just b/c Stan didn't do it, doesn't mean it can't be done in an interesting and entertaining way. Keep in mind, we're not talking about every comic being done this way--we're talking about one comic, and a 12 issue miniseries at that. It's theoretically possible an interesting, well crafted comic could be made feautring a schizophrenic superperson. Doesn't mean every comic should feature that, but certainly the genre and medium can handle one book that's different from the mainstream.

Creators should just put out what they think is good and let the market sort it out (unfortunately, the Big Two aren't listening to the market, but that's another debate).

And if all it was I would agree James. But with Watchmen you get Dark Knight and with Dark Knight you get Killing Joke and that stupidty became canon. I agree there should be adult themed comic books, but not in the guise of a superhero comic. And that is my problem with Watchmen, it is an adult story dressed up as a superhero story.

I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree. I liked Dark Knight Returns as well, but dislike a lot of the current Civil War and Identity Crisis type books. However, I'm not going to blame a book that wasn't in continuity, featured characters not in use in the mainstream DCU, and was a one shot, 12 issue story that never had a sequel. I'm not going to blame Watchmen for the army of shit comics that came after, just like I'm not going to blame Led Zeppelin for every shit 80's band.

I think that there can be superhero or superperson type stories that are aimed at adults. If they were making an attempt to market it toward children, I can see your point a bit better, but the art, coloring, covers, and marketing were aimed at an adult audience.

If you talk about keeping Spidey and Green Lantern as all ages or kid's books, you'll see me right behind you. But to force all new ideas and creations to mold to the idealized superhero mold  isn't fair and seems pointless.

Two stories I loved seeing Franklin Richards in:

X-Men - 141

Fantastic Four - 245

Next, the super-heroes were just generic archetypes.

Which generic archetypes?

Next, the pirate comics stuff seemed forced and just a "I"m so clever, I'll include this parrallel tale (as if it's never been done before), just because I can.

So because something has been done before makes it sh!tty? Should we criticise the Weisinger era Superman writers or Roy Thomas for follwoing the even more overused models that preceded them? No way if you ask me.

Finally, I predicted the ending and was extremely disappointed that a no-talent amateur like me could precog a writer of Alan Moore's stature.

Wow, you could predict that Ozymandias would biogenetically create a fake alien, then attempt to destroy Dr. Manhattan, then seem at the brink of victory, then Manhattan would recreate himself, defeat Ozymandias physically, and then kill Rorscach? Man, you've got some eye, I wouldn't say a "no talent amatuer" at all.

To this day I feel that the hype surrounding Watchmen has convinced us comic fans that Watchmen was great, more than the book itself did.

I'd say it was the majority of people reading it and finding they enjoy it. Hollywood hypes all kinds of movies and only the ones a lot of people like tend to become thought of as "great".

In our society we've become so acustomed to the product not living up it's advance press that when something comes anywhere near what we hoped it would be, we heap praise upon it.

Right, like Waterworld, Wild Wild West, and Snakes on a Plane.

 So, at that time, ( that's "back in the day" to you whippersnappers) if 'The Comics Journal' (which had a whole lot more words than pictures, so it must be an intellectual periodical instead of a comic book fanzine) said Watchmen was great, it must be great.

I guess the rest of mankind doesn't have your insight. Thank god you've arrived to tell the masses what the score is. Any respect at all for the inteligence of other people? Does anyone who likes somethign you don't simply falling for tricks and hype?

Once again, it wasn't bad but it didn't cure Cancer. The at-the-time-hype then, and the lore now, have exceeded what the product was.

I agree..

Another story I would add to this list is the Iron Man Demon In A Bottle storyline.  Tony Stark pushed to the edge and losing control of his drinking and going on a drunken super-heroing spree might make for an interesting story arc, but establishing Tony as an alcoholic was unnecessary, and that one story had repercussions that were WAY too far-reaching without adding anything of value to the character or the comic.

Demon In A Bottle paved the way for us to see Hal Jordan go on a bender in Emerald Dawn . . . ANOTHER story that never should have been told, IMO.

I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree. I liked Dark Knight Returns as well, but dislike a lot of the current Civil War and Identity Crisis type books. However, I'm not going to blame a book that wasn't in continuity, featured characters not in use in the mainstream DCU, and was a one shot, 12 issue story that never had a sequel. I'm not going to blame Watchmen for the army of shit comics that came after, just like I'm not going to blame Led Zeppelin for every shit 80's band.

No but you should blame Megadeath and Gwar for Marylin Manson. He took a very adult story and dressed it up as a superhero tale. Which allowed Dark Knight to become darker which allowed Killing Joke not to be a one shot elseworlds but to be thought of as something that would be ok to make canon. It is the slippery slope of "pushing" the boundries and upping the bar for the next idiot who wants to shock us. Watchmen should have been an adult series set in a more sci fi setting instead of bright colored superhero figured world. This gritty realism allows the next comic to be more gritty and the next one and all of a sudden you have heroes who aren't heroes. Good that is not bad to a degree and a world where you can make the orginal Superboy a mass murderer and Iron Man set up a prision in the Negative Zone. This is one the first shots across that bow make no mistake. It started here.