----

http://www.wired.com/entertainment/hollywood/magazine/17-03/ ff_moore_qa

"I don't really think that very much is interesting about the superhero as an archetype."

"So yeah, I'm pretty jaundiced about the entire 'caped crusader' concept at the moment."

http://thequietus.com/articles/04603-alan-moore-interview-un earthing-2

"I'm interested in the superhero in real life, but not the comic book version. I've had some distancing thoughts about them recently. I've come to the conclusion that what superheroes might be — in their current incarnation, at least — is a symbol of American reluctance to involve themselves in any kind of conflict without massive tactical superiority."

"But I suspect that a lot of superheroes now are basically about the unfair fight. You know: people wouldn't bully me if I could turn into the Hulk."

http://www.wired.com/entertainment/hollywood/magazine/17-03/ ff_moore_qa

"I don't really think that very much is interesting about the superhero as an archetype."

"So yeah, I'm pretty jaundiced about the entire 'caped crusader' concept at the moment."

http://thequietus.com/articles/04603-alan-moore-interview-un earthing-2

"I'minterested in the superhero in real life, but not the comic bookversion. I've had some distancing thoughts about them recently. I'vecome to the conclusion that what superheroes might be — in theircurrent incarnation, at least — is a symbol of American reluctance toinvolve themselves in any kind of conflict without massive tacticalsuperiority."

Also re the bolded, he is not wrong.

Superheoes have pretty much always been about power fantasy and wish fullfilment

----

There is a huge gap between saying that superheroes are about power fantasy and saying that superheroes are about an American need to be the bullies in a fight. If you can't read disdain in that, I don't know what to tell you.

---

Yes, he does. Read both articles linked above.

I think that the reasons for Watchmen being worthy of the acclaim that it has received may have more do do with how it's told than what it's about.

Other posters here have argued that the works of John Byrne are more passionate about superheroes, comics illustrated by Jack Kirby are more dynamic, the writings from 1950s DC Comics more imaginative, and the early Marvel Comics of Stan Lee more important to the development of the medium. I'd agree with all of that.

But why Watchmen is important has to do with it being a self-contained story, with a beginning, middle, and end. You can compare characters like The Fantastic Four, Spider-Man, and Superman only to the characters of Watchmen, because to compare the titles wold be unfair. Titles like Batman, Green Lantern, and The Flash were and are intended to be published in perpetuity. Watchmen was not, and it gave Moore the freedom to have his characters grow and change (in ways that Clark Kent and Bruce Wayne possibly cannot), be revealed as villains, or have popular characters killed. I'm sure there were self-contained stories in the medium before Watchmen, but (and please correct me if I'm wrong) it was the first which was as popular as it was and that also gave readers a conclusive ending.

And more important than that, is its use of symbolism, recurring motifs, and points of view. Elements like "Tales of the Black Freighter" paralleling both Veidt and Rorschach's arcs, the blood-spattered smiley pin mirroring the doomsay clock (and visually appearing in different iterations across nearly all of its twelve chapters), Dr. Manhattan's recounting of his origin, or the use of supplementary material at the end of each issue's end to embelish the world which Moore creates, had never been used as effectively before and arguably have not been used as successfully since.

In this way, I'd probably compare Watchmen to Citizen Kane. Kane had a plot that was (arguably) nothing special and featured characters which were largely unremarkable and unlikeable. It was Welles revealing Kane's story by unconventional and unchronological methods, his clever placement and movement of the camera, and use of symbolism, though, that led it to being placed on AFI's list of the top 100 American movies, in 1998, the same way that, despite a plot that was (arguably) nothing special and featured characters which were largely unlikeable, Watchmen is worthy of much of the acclaim that it has earned.

You can argue that Watchmen isn't deserving of its benchmark status because of its ugly characters, seeming spite for the genre, plot culled from dimestore pulps (and plagiarized from an Outer Limits episode), and overal destructive effect on the medium and, though I may not agree, I could at least appreciate your point of view. However, I think its more difficult to argue that Watchmen was, at the time of its release, one of the most innovately told comic book stories. I'd argue that few comic books since then have even attempted the degree of sophistication which Moore achieved with certain techniques.

David Kingsley Kingsley wrote: I'd argue that few comic books since then have even attempted the degree of sophistication which Moore achieved with certain techniques.

I think it's these kinds of comments that put off a ton of people.  Just say why you like it and what compels you to read it without passive/aggressively slamming everything that came after it.  I think there have been a ton of comic books that have been told with much more sophistication after WATCHMEN than the few that you infer. Moore's story is no more or less sophisticated than comic book stories that came before or after it.  Also, that's the reason why people ask about their knowledge of comic books.  When someone calls WATCHMEN "innovative" and "sophisticated" as though it was the first comic book ever to do what it did, I'm sorry, but that does show a striking lack of knowledge of the history of comic books in general and about the kind of story Moore was telling in the way he told it specifically.