Watchmen should have been an adult series set in a more sci fi setting instead of bright colored superhero figured world.

Watchmen was hardly set in a brightly colored world. But the bigger problem I have with this statement is it suggests what Moore "should" have done. He made a brilliant comic, adding depth to an often two-dimensional genre. It seems to me that as a creator, he's entirely free to do as he pleases, and if someone wants to pay him and publish it, so much the better. You "should" not have bought it if you didn't care for it, nor what followed which is hardly Moore's responsiblity.

Another story I would add to this list is the Iron Man Demon In A Bottle storyline. 

For the record, as a kid I was moved by the Demon in a Bottle story line, particularly Tony Stark as a homeless alcoholic who had lost everything. It seems a bit trite now, but at the time it seemed an attempt to wrestle with a problem a little more substantial than the Mandarin or Titanium Man. It may have come across as an after-school special but I give 'em credit for trying. As for what happened to the character later, I can't say. I just returned to comics after a 15 year hiatus. But again, you can't fault a creator for what others do in his or her wake. (see above Led Zeppelin comment). All art of significance spawns imitators and admirers.

I blame the fans... they buy the shit like Civil War and Identity Crisis

In my re-immersion to comics, I picked up, read and enjoyed Identity Crisis. What makes it "shit"? (serious question here)

QUOTE: I blame the fans... they buy the shit like Civil War and Identity Crisis.... The big two didnt put a gun to peoples heads to get people to buy those stories Hell Civil War for all the bitching people are doing is flying off the shelves like free Crack at a Crack House.... The "fans" love it and can't get enough of it...

I love this statement.  As far as I can tell, the only "bitching" about Civil War and I guess Identity Crisis is happening here among a couple dozen people.  Do you think YOU have the right to decide the direction comics should go in against the thousands that are buying Civil War since it's "flying off shelves"?  Don't get me wrong, I respect your opinion, but to just claim something modern from Marvel is shit comes across as pandering to our host more than a rational explanation of what you think is wrong with comics.

JB: 'The Outer Limits" did a big chunk of it without
"superheroes".

And, PS, making everybody neurotic or psychotic is
not the same as depth of character.

****

I haven't seen the Outer Limits episode that WATCHMEN resembles, but I still see the work as fundamentally a superhero story. It is not generally positive or upbeat (though the ending seems inclined that way), but it is one writer's vision of what "real" superheroes could be like.

JB, I agree with your postscript-- though I wonder if Dan Dreiberg was sexually neurotic before or after he gave up being Nite Owl? Laurie doesn't seem to be psychotic, but she has mother issues. And Dr Manhattan seems to have passed beyond our ability to call his state of mind psychotic.

The more I think it over, the more I believe (regarding WATCHMEN) that being a costumed crimefighter carries strains (or traumas) that manifest themselves in strange and terrible ways. The Minutemen DIDN'T seem to be psychotic, at first, though several did have serious issues (and I don't think Hooded Justice and Capt. Metropolis being gay counts as issues). Eddie Blake, though... okay, he was pretty horrible from the beginning, but he displayed several facets through the course of the story.

Hollis Mason, for one, didn't seem troubled at all. Sally Jupiter was a woman in a bad marriage-- but she wasn't crazy.

Were they troubled people who became costumed crimefighters or did their vigilante careers drive them toward breakdown? Many police officers, particularly those in high crime urban areas, suffer what we'd think of as post-traumatic stress disorder-- the job causes them psychological damage, just as it broke Rorschach. I can't claim this was one of Moore's primary theses in the book but I think it's a possibility.

And I still think Rorschach made a heroic choice. He was crazy, true, but he was capable of understanding the scope of a moral choice and what the cost of that choice would be; he chose to fight evil regardless, knowing his choice meant that Dr Manhattan would have to kill him. Fighting evil-- even up to one's last breath-- is heroic whether the person is otherwise insane or not. If it isn't, why would any of us celebrate Ted Kord's defiance of Max Lord at the cost of his own life?

Edited to fix a typo that completely changed the sentence's meaning!

Watchmen was hardly set in a brightly colored world. But the bigger problem I have with this statement is it suggests what Moore "should" have done. He made a brilliant comic, adding depth to an often two-dimensional genre. It seems to me that as a creator, he's entirely free to do as he pleases, and if someone wants to pay him and publish it, so much the better. You "should" not have bought it if you didn't care for it, nor what followed which is hardly Moore's responsiblity

Well one, if somehow comics are a two dimensional genre and Watchmen isn't, either you have a low opinion of comics or you had three d glasses on. And if you bothered to read my other posts I said it was an entertaing read but think it is a bad superhero story. So nowhere did I say I didn't care for it but thanks for putting words in my mouth.

We probably all have different opinions on what constitutes a superhero story. WATCHMEN features characters who wear costumes and fight crime (or serve the US government). This makes it a "superhero story" to many readers. It also fits into alternate history or science fiction, but the fundamental conceits are deliberate warpings of pulp and superhero tropes.

Could the story have been done without any of these elements? Without costumes, code names and so forth? Sure... but that isn't the story Alan Moore set out to tell. IMHO, it is a very different kind of superhero story. It doesn't seem to me that Alan Moore is laughing at or trashing superheroes gratuitously, but my opinion may be in the minority. (And I will readily admit that he's written things that DO trash superheroes... I just don't think WATCHMEN is one of them.)

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.

******

So isn't The Shield a cop show?

It's about a squad of corrupt lawmen, who aren't above working with drug dealers while trying to illegally line their own pockets...but at the end of the day, isn't it still a cop show?

Are you then going to say that this brilliantly crafted and acted, Emmy-award winning show is a "bad" cop show because the cops don't behave in a conventional manner?

<<Watchmen was hardly set in a brightly colored world. But the bigger problem I have with this statement is it suggests what Moore "should" have done. He made a brilliant comic, adding depth to an often two-dimensional genre. It seems to me that as a creator, he's entirely free to do as he pleases, and if someone wants to pay him and publish it, so much the better. You "should" not have bought it if you didn't care for it, nor what followed which is hardly Moore's responsiblity.<<

This is akin to coming across a burnt down building and chiding someone for saying the arsonist shoudln't have played with matches by saying "hey, he bought the matches who are you to tell him how he can use them?"

Yes, he's FREE to do whatever the publishers let and pay him to do, he set out to deconstruct superheroes -- and now they are all burnt to the ground - and he shouldn't have done it - as even HE now has made regretful sounds for being careless with the matches he was FREE to do with as he pleased. This whole thread is about what SHOULD not be/have been done -- and Deconstruction is certainly a prime topic for consideration, and Watchmen was the first match.

Watchmen was a damn good yarn. That's all that really matters in the end. Nobody here has the right to decide for me what I should be reading. I liked Watchmen, Dark Knight Returns, and am enjoying the slew of darker stuff out there today like Squadron Supreme and Civil War.

I also feel that just because someone may have worked in the comic book industry or has been reading them all their lives doesn't give them the authority to determine what is and is not acceptable for the genre.

I say put several different types of stories out there and let the consumers decide what is and is not acceptable for the genre.

... Oh wait, we already do that.

Watchmen was a damn good yarn. That's all that really matters in the end. Nobody here has the right to decide for me what I should be reading. I liked Watchmen, Dark Knight Returns, and am enjoying the slew of darker stuff out there today like Squadron Supreme and Civil War.

I also feel that just because someone may have worked in the comic book industry or has been reading them all their lives doesn't give them the authority to determine what is and is not acceptable for the genre.

Well damn, I guess we are going to have to change our views that certain types of stories should be banned and never printed....oh wait we DIDN'T say that. We were discussing if they should be made because of the damge they do to the genre as a whole. It is a conversation, not the Senate, there are no lasting resolutions here Rance so calm down...no one is determing anything except out opinions.