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?"

This is a bizarre notion. Moore  didn't destroy anything, he created something. He experimented with a genre and made something interesting. He didn't burn destroy comics any more than James Joyce burned down the novel. To suggest that he (and DC) should have censored themselves because they might have anticipated whatever pale imitations followed is absurd.

Like you just did?

But some of us tried not to tear it.

I said: 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

You said: 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.

I believe said I comics are often a two-dimensional genre, which is certainly true. And yes, I have a low opinion of many comics (although certainly not all), as do many people on this board, it seems. That's why I think something original and interesting should be celebrated, not criticized for somehow not being able to predict the future. As far as your enjoyment of Watchmen, my mistake. I'm glad you liked it.

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

amen

Hurgh! What I meant is that it's possible to tell stories without giving your characters super powers. For once, it makes your story more mature and it will appeal to more adults. That's why Sin City is 1321421421412 times superior to DKR.

When we talk about what is acceptable for a genre, we must remember the audience for which that genre was originally created. Comic books, as a medium, can be as broad based as movies, or TV, or any other entertainment form. But just as PBS would not launch an "adult" version of "Sesame Street", or NBC would not consider a "kiddie" version of one of their nighttime soaps, so comic publishers should not look upon different genres as if they are all the same.*



*No small part of the problem, of course, is that the overwhelming monopoly of the Direct Sales Market has all-but-destroyed the viability of anything that isn't superheroes, and so the Big Two have tried to warp that genre to fit the other kinds of stories they want to tell. Publishers are by definition panderers, and the days when a tiny company like Marvel might shake the rafters by doing something different (but not destructive), and effecitively forcing the audience to pay attention, are long gone. Today, the mantra is not "What can I create that will sell?" but "What's already selling that we can do more of?"

The success of the series tells us there is an audience for this, but it does raise the question of whether both Frank and his audience would be better served by more SIN CITY, rather than (as mentioned in my previous post) one genre being turned to the service of another.*


* For the intellectually impaired in the audience, please note that these comments are meant in no way to be qualitative. I make no judgement of the inherent worth of the work here.

I make no judgement of the inherent worth of the work here.

But shouldn't we? Doesn't great work justify its existence? I am, by no means, qualified to discuss the economics of the industry or whatever impact Watchmen or Dark Knight had on it. But I do know they are visionary works and we'd be a lot poorer as readers if they didn't come along. And I would to think great work wasn't being created out of fear that some paler imitation down the road might somehow weaken the industry.

Perhaps a ratings system might be the best approach, to clearly segregate darker, ``adult'' material from comics for kids. (Although I was a teenager who read and enjoyed Watchmen and Dark Knight when they were first released).

(Tony Stark's alcoholism) 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.

**********************

SER: And therein lies the problem.

Agreed. 

If the Mandarin or the Titanium Man don't seem substantial enough, then THAT in itself is a problem -- a problem that could easily be solved by good writing -- interjecting a "real world" problem like alcholism instead of tacklling the REAL problem head-on by trying to find ways to make the Mandarin or the Titanium Man seem substantial enough amounts to -- say it with me everybody -- lazy writing.