| Author |
|
John Mietus
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 16 April 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 9704
|
| Posted: 23 October 2005 at 5:04pm | IP Logged | 1
|
|
|
Oh, and in that context, Jason, I understand what you're saying.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Mark Haslett
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 19 April 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 6585
|
| Posted: 23 October 2005 at 5:12pm | IP Logged | 2
|
|
|
Yes, "everyone" (in quotes since this forum proves there are a few wise souls out there) labors under the illusion that DKR and Watchmen represent the best this discipline has to offer.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Mike Tishman
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 25 July 2005
Posts: 229
|
| Posted: 23 October 2005 at 5:14pm | IP Logged | 3
|
|
|
Jon Godson wrote:
| The guy (or gal) that is virtuous, that does what's
right because it's the right thing to do. He doesn't rape a member of
his team, doesn't hire himself out as an assassin for the CIA, doesn't
have mental problems, doesn't get off sexually when others see him in
his tight-fitting costume, doesn't slaughter millions to make a point,
doesn't divide himself into more beings to have an orgy with his
girlfriend - heck, he doesn't even smoke or swear. |
|
|
The other examples you cite are valid, but I don't really see how any
reasonable person could see Dr. Manhattan splitting into multiple
copies in a sad and misguided attempt to make his partner happy is
unheroic. There's nothing immoral about it. It's a little odd, which of
course is the point of the scene - he's become so powerful that he
finds it more and more difficult to understand humanity's limited
perspective, and so his attempts to be considerate come out all weird.
Jon Godson wrote:
| Don't just blame Watchman. Miller had Batman
throwing sharpened batarangs into people. In Swamp Thing, Veitch
revisited many old DC characters like Roy Raymond and Bat Lash in a
less than respectful way and hit almost every taboo with Brat Pack and
Maxi-Mortal. Shade the Changing Man became a book with human sexuality
in the forefront almost every issue. By the time Vertigo became an
imprint for such fare, it had already infected the mainstream
characters. |
|
|
You're talking about sexuality like it's a contagious disease. I find
it odd that we are all able to accept stylized violence as a genre
convention but some people bristle at even the slightest hint of
sexuality. It seems unhealthy.
Flavio Sapha wrote:
| These comics usually carried a SUGGESTED FOR
MATURE READERS label, of course, they meant fourteen-year-olds like me
- real mature, huh? |
|
|
I don't think there's anything in any of those comics that a reasonably intelligent 14-year-old can't handle.
James C. Taylor wrote:
| But there was a reason DC didn't let him use
the Charlton characters for it, and in a way what DC was afraid it
would do to the Charlton characters in fact it did to the whole genre,
which was render it untenable. |
|
|
You may have a point here. Superheroes as a genre may be untenable in
some sense (at least long-term) post-Watchmen. You can't really
un-read it once you've read it and it kind of colors every superhero
book you read thereafter. Superhero stories may be dependent to some
degree or another on a sort of innocent suspension of disbelief, and
Watchmen represents a sort of loss of innocence for the genre.
If that's true, it's a hell of an artistic accomplishment, then, isn't
it? If you're never able to see its topic the same way again afterwards
- that's pretty much the definition of a great work of art, bittersweet
though it may be.
Darragh Greene wrote:
| Maus is a work of fiction. There's no rule
stating you can't write a beast-fable based upon the Holocaust. |
|
|
Have you actually read Maus? It's not a fable, or a work of
fiction of any kind. It's not like it's a story about cats and mice
(and dogs and pigs etc) which you're supposed to take as a metaphor.
It's not Animal Farm. If you just read the dialogue and didn't look at
the pictures at all, you'd have no idea animals were involved.
It's an account of Art Spiegelman's father's experiences during the
Holocaust, as his father related them to him, and also a story of
Spiegelman relating to his father as a Holocaust survivor. It's not
fictionalized at all: it's pretty much straight biography. Spiegelman
draws the people involved as anthropomorphized animals, but he tells
their stories totally straight otherwise.
Shaenon Garrity wrote:
| Another nice quote from Alan Moore in the
article: "I originally intended Rorschach to be a warning about the
possible outcome of vigilante thinking. But an awful lot of comics
readers felt his remorseless, frightening, psychotic toughness was his
most appealing characteristic--not quite what I was going for." |
|
|
It's very much like what happened to Judge Dredd when he crossed the
pond. Americans interpreted him as a bad-ass take-no-prisoners
anti-hero, whereas he was obviously intended to be a vicious fascist
and a parody of the police state mentality. See also what later
happened to The Authority.
James C. Taylor wrote:
| How is not the Comedian the very personification of cynical? |
|
|
How is the Comedian the character most representative of the book as a
whole? If anything, the core of the book really comes down to the
ideological conflict between Rorschach and Dr. Manhattan, and the Nite
Owl/Silk Spectre/Dr. Manhattan love triangle.
Darragh Greene wrote:
| If Watchmen wasn't cynical, please point out the idealism because I sure can't find any. |
|
|
Dr. Manhattan has the broadest, most all-encompassing perspective of
all and he's totally serene and at peace with the world. He's the guy
least burdened by human frailties, and he knows everything is
ultimately OK. Further, despite all the horrors and whatnot they've
witnessed, Nite Owl and Silk Spectre find comfort in each other, as Dr.
Manhattan smiles benignly over them. In some sense, that's the
emotional core of the book, and it speaks to a certain optimism
underlying the outward gloom.
John Mietus wrote:
| "I used to be with it, but then they changed what it was. Now what
I'm with is no longer it, and what is it is strange and scary to me --
and it'll happen to you!" -- Abe Simpson |
|
|
It never happened to John Peel...
Edited by Mike Tishman on 23 October 2005 at 5:17pm
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
John Mietus
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 16 April 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 9704
|
| Posted: 23 October 2005 at 5:14pm | IP Logged | 4
|
|
|
I think that Gibbons quote about how Watchmen was intended to broaden
the market, not narrow it further, was incredibly telling.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Rob Hewitt
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 11 May 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 10182
|
| Posted: 23 October 2005 at 5:55pm | IP Logged | 5
|
|
|
I get intimidated following Mike Tishman-he respknds to so many people, how do I even know where to begin? :0
Matt-I think the line "they shouldn't be reading..." has become something of a cliche here, or gone back to too many times. But I believe that superheroes are meant to be taken as they are and should excite the 10 year old in all of us. If they don't do that, no harm, just move on. I don't think Marvel or DC is served when villains are made into cheap, easily beat chumps or when basic conceits are questioned within the stories themselves.
For example-in real life, a superhero couldn;t get away with his super identity-not without surveillance technology the way it is. Which is fine but when that is brought into the comics, it's kind of like the guy who tries to reveal the magician's tricks-it cheapens the experience for everyone.
I'd rather my superhero stories be told straight up-secret ids, no one can tell the half-masked hero is the other guy they hang out with all the time, villains get away only to be faced again and again-that sort of thing.
Re-Frank Miller-I know he got criticized with All-Star-I just believe that he does get a pass from many people. For ex. Many people decry how batman is now. Yet they like All-Star Batman. I read the 2 issues. So far I don't see a huge difference.
So i think some people give legends in the field the benefit of the doubt they wouldn't give someone else. "Because it is Frank Miller" or "Because it is Neal Adams." Not that I have anything against neal adams either (I liked that All Star cover). But sometimes the Emperor has no clothes and it's ok-no one can be perfect all the time.
***
James: Rob, I specifically haven't discussed Frank and Dark Knight because this isn't a thread about it. Matt points out that Frank doesn't get a free pass here (as neither does our host.)
Alan Moore fans and Grant Morrison fans seem to think they're the only ones who take shots here. They don't. The problem may be the why of their taking shots.
****
I understand James. Just for the record, I wouldn't call myself an Alan Moore fan. I have hardly read anything he has done. League of Extraordinary Gentlemena dn Whatever happened to the Man of TOmorrow (?) the exceptions. I liked them well enough.
generally i follow characters with a few exceptions-JB I generally follow (though not like some people here-I can't compete with that!) and I'd buy anythig Roger Stern did for Marvel or STan Lee, or if McFarland came back to Marvel. I used to buy much of what Gruenwald did. Claremont to a certain point (less lately).
Grant Morrison? I have nothing against him. I didn;t overall care for his X-men stories, and I did like Seven Soldiers but I just couldn't keep up with it at the same time House of M and Crisis was happening. and like I said-I follow characters and these weren't characters I was too familiar with.
I think I preferred it before i knew so much about the creators themselves, and just got some glimpses through magazines and Marvel Age and Stan's Sopabox or Mark's Remarks. Sometimes you don't want to see behind the curtain-whether you like or dislike the person. There's a little more magic there, when I used to think JB and Chris or Stan and Jack or Steve was huddling in a little room coming up with the stories together.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
e-mail
|
| |
Jason Fulton
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 16 April 2004
Posts: 3938
|
| Posted: 23 October 2005 at 6:03pm | IP Logged | 6
|
|
|
I think someone could get away with a superhero identity in the 'real world', even with all of the surveillance technology we have now. Luckily, I shouldn't have to worry about that in comic books because they aren't the real world. If I want reality, I'll read the newspaper.
Reading any Marvel/DC superhero comic (yes, I'll qualify it, just because some jacknut will come up and say 'but....Vertigo is published by DC!') should make me feel like a 10 yr old, not make me think about how life supposedly sucks. That way lies Dark Congorilla.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
James Wright
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 16 April 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 1062
|
| Posted: 23 October 2005 at 6:18pm | IP Logged | 7
|
|
|
I love Watchmen. I read my crinkled TPB probably once per year.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Thomas Mets
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 05 September 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 898
|
| Posted: 23 October 2005 at 6:28pm | IP Logged | 8
|
|
|
All of the main characters in Watchmen are compromised human beings and
nothing approaching a paragon exists aside the Golden Age Nite Owl.
Nite Owl II is overweight and entirely ineffectual, and he is,
arguably, the best of the lot.
Cynicism. Onions. Enjoy.
********************************************************** ******************8
From my understanding Dan Drieberg is overweight, and ineffectual. Nite
Owl 2's a great lover, has the balls to break a friend out of prison,
and he’s the one who realizes who the villain is. The only reason he’s
outsmarted is the villain’s brilliance, not because of shortcomings on
his part.
So Matt, you're saying, "Don't condemn Watchmen and Dark Knight Returns
for darkening mainstream comics, just those who were inspired by those
books?" I'm sorry, that doesn't wash for me, unless you can explain how
that's not like, "Don't condemn the first serial killer, just those who were
copycats." And no, I'm not saying Moore and Miller were serial killers, I'm
using hyperbole to emphasize my curiosity.
********************************************************** **************************
Rather than blaming Miller & Moore, you should blame the first
inferior writers to rip off Watchmen & The Dark Knight Returns,
especially in regular issues of long-running series (and the editors
who approved those works).
But is the darkening of the super-hero genre necessarily a bad thing?
Nothing wrong with a dark and gritty superhero tale, is there now? Just
as long as they are not all dark and gritty.
Watchmen is an important comic as it changed expectations in both
readers and creators of what could be done in the genre. Just like
Stan, Jack and Steve did in the sixties. The problem is that most
writers in the field are not as good as Moore so they're not going to
produce comics anywhere nearly as good as him.
Watchmen should be viewed as only one particular way to do superhero comics, not as the only way.
********************************************************** *****************************
I approve of the above statement.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Matt Reed
Byrne Robotics Security
Robotmod
Joined: 16 April 2004
Posts: 36181
|
| Posted: 23 October 2005 at 6:31pm | IP Logged | 9
|
|
|
Don't know about everyone else, but I sure was looking for your approval!
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Jason Fulton
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 16 April 2004
Posts: 3938
|
| Posted: 23 October 2005 at 6:32pm | IP Logged | 10
|
|
|
That's the only reason I come online - searching for mass approval of what I do and think.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
John Byrne
Grumpy Old Guy
Joined: 11 May 2005
Posts: 133855
|
| Posted: 23 October 2005 at 6:40pm | IP Logged | 11
|
|
|
I think that Gibbons quote about how Watchmen was intended to broaden the market, not narrow it further, was incredibly telling. ***** Dave is also the one who gave us the cogent observation that the books are not "grim and gritty", they are just glum.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Mark Haslett
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 19 April 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 6585
|
| Posted: 23 October 2005 at 6:48pm | IP Logged | 12
|
|
|
Thomas Mets:
But is the darkening of the super-hero genre necessarily a bad thing?
Nothing wrong with a dark and gritty superhero tale, is there now? Just
as long as they are not all dark and gritty.
Watchmen is an important comic as it changed expectations in both
readers and creators of what could be done in the genre. Just like
Stan, Jack and Steve did in the sixties. The problem is that most
writers in the field are not as good as Moore so they're not going to
produce comics anywhere nearly as good as him.
Watchmen should be viewed as only one particular way to do superhero comics, not as the only way.
********************************************************** *****************************
I approve of the above statement.
***
Obviously it's a bad thing in the context being discussed. There would be no discussion of "darkening the super-hero genre" if it were just a few characters, would there?
By the above criteria "importance" is used to describe Watchmen's impact as widespread (albeit bad). "Importance" of that kind is undeniable -- but says nothing of quality. The fact that Stan and Jack's example was emulated to the profit of the entire industry separates their impact quite a bit from the impact of Watchmen.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
|
|
Topic Closed)
