web stats

CSBG Archive

A Year of Cool Comics – Day 211

Here is the latest in our year-long look at one cool comic (whether it be a self-contained work, an ongoing comic or a run on a long-running title that featured multiple creative teams on it over the years) a day (in no particular order whatsoever)! Here‘s the archive of the moments posted so far!

Today we look at Alan Moore and Dave Gibbons’ Watchmen in an interesting fashion. Let’s just look at ONE page from the comic…

Enjoy!

In case you just started readings comics earlier today, Watchmen was a 12-issue series that tells the story of a group of mostly-retired superheroes who come together after one of their old comrades is murdered. As they slowly get back into touch and get back into being superheroes, their investigation of the murder uncovers a much larger conspiracy.

So anyways, the comic is incredibly rich and detailed, and I thought a good way to show you this would be to just pick a SINGLE page and see all that we can unpack from it.

I’ll go with #2, which features the funeral of the Comedian, and as we see one character, Ozymanadias, he flashes back to the last time the group of heroes tried to form a superhero team, an attempt organized by the comically out-of-date Captain Metropolis…

Okay, let’s see a few notable things (spoilers involved)…

1. Ozymandias foreshadows his later plans – he thinks that a better-organized person CAN change the world

2. Rorschach, in the past, speaks with a normal voice – he hasn’t changed to the voice that he uses in the present.

3. Gibbons adds in a brilliant sequence where Doctor Manhattan checks out Silk Spectre in the first panel, and his (comparably older) girlfriend notices, and in the later panels, we see her giving him a hard time over his glances at the younger woman. Manhattan, of course, DOES end up with Silk Spectre.

4. Comedian talks trash to Ozymandias at the end, telling him he does not understand the reality of the world. The irony there, of course, is that when Comedian eventually discovers Ozymandias’ secret plans, HE cannot handle it – and this is a guy who has done some crazy, messed up crap.

that’s the important stuff, but I guess you can also discuss how Doctor Manhattan is first being seen as an “Imperial Weapon” at the time, 1966, which would be when the US was using him during Vietnam.

So yeah, look at all you can unpack out of ONE page!

Imagine if you read the WHOLE thing!

30 Comments

Tom Fitzpatrick

July 31, 2010 at 2:21 pm

The Watchmen graphic novel is one of those rare gem, where no matter how many times one has read the book, there’s always some NEW tidbits that one didn’t get or notice before.

One of kind. Very few writers has been able to achieve this type of storytelling.

The Watchmen will probably always attract readers (both old and new) back to it, again, and again.

And DC wants to do a prequel and sequel. One can ONLY hope that they don’t screw it up if they go ahead and do this.

Notice the time on the clock is five minutes to midnight.

And Dr. Manhattan has begun to wear fewer clothes.

And Comedian’s nose is broken.

Interesting idea! Here’s some more details in I notice on this page:

Panel 1: here we have the “5 to midnight” clock motif, which of course is a reference to the Doomsday Clock ticking towards atomic war. A lot of the clocks you see in Watchmen show the same time. Also, if you imagine the ubiquitous “smiley with a blood stain” motif as a clock face where the blood spatter is the big hand of the clock, it too can be interpreted as a reference to the Doomsday Clock.

Panel 2: Cap Metropolis thinks “drugs”, “campus subversion”, “black unrest”, “anti-war demos”, and “promiscuity” are “social evils”; quite obviously he’s a rather reactionary conservative. This is interesting when you contrast it with later revelation that Cap was/is gay… Gays and lesbians are stereotypically thought to be liberals, but of course this isn’t always the case. Moore is usually a pro-gay writer, but it’s worth noting that none of the homosexual characters in Watchmen come off as particularly sympathetic. Obviously Moore is aiming for the sort of neutral approach where a character’s sexual orientation shouldn’t determine how positively or negatively he is portrayed, but if Watchmen was the only Moore comic you’d ever read, you might feel he doesn’t think much of gay people.

It’s worth noting that in the Watchmen alternate timeline The New York Times apparently doesn’t exist, and in its place there’s the imaginary “New York Gazette”. Since Times was founded in 1851, it’s possible that Watchmen’s alternate timeline diverged from “our” timeline much earlier than with the apperance of the first real-life costumed heroes. This theory of an earlier divergence is backed up by the fact that in the Watchmen world the slogan for Heinz is “58 flavours”, not “57 flavours” as in our world. That slogan was coined years before 1938, when Hooded Justice made his first apperance in the Watchmen timeline.

Panel 3: The Comedian calls Cap Metropolis “Nelly”. This, of course, is short of “Nelson”, but “Nelly” is also a female name. Since the members of Minutemen apparently knew Cap and Hooded Justice were gay, it seems Blake is invoking the ages-old tradition of disparaging gay men by feminizing them.

Panel 4: Out of all the people in this gathering, Nite Owl and Ozymandias seem to be the only ones actually interested in Nelson’s “Crimebusters” idea. Makes you wonder why the others even bothered to show up?

Panel 5: Not only does Rorschach still have his normal voice, but he also uses the word “I” and speaks in regular sentences. Later on, after becoming the “real”, Rorschach, he drops the first person pronouns and starts forming sentences like a character in a hard boiled detective novel.

Panel 6: Look at Nelson’s posture here: he’s completely humiliated by Comedian’s comments, he doesn’t even try to argue back like Ozymandias does. The way Ozzy’s and Blake’s argument is staged is interesting too. Blake is standing up an leaning towards Ozzy, who is sitting; this gives Blake an aura of physical strength and physical confrontation. In issue #11 we learn that sometime before this meeting Blake and Ozzy had had a brawl, and Blake had won. So Ozzy knows he isn’t (yet) the physical equivalent of Blake, he has to win by his intelligence. He remains calm and seated throughout the whole argument, and doesn’t rise to Blake’s physical challenge.

Panel 7: Blake calls the other costumed heroes “clowns”, but at this point he’s still dressing up in costume and fighting crime too. Apparently he gets something else out of it than the others, since he obviously doesn’t believe his actions will change anything on a larger scale.

That’s a very odd way for cigar smoke to behave, especially since in the previous panels we’ve seen in go straight up. On the next page we see that Blake isn’t facing Ozymandias anymore, he’s turned towards the other costumed heroes. I think the odd cigar smoke in this panel is supposed to signal that turn. Gibbons intentionally avoids using motion lines throughout the whole series, so he has to rely on tricks like this to imply motion. In this case it isn’t particularly successful though: I think few readers will even notice the curve in the cigar smoke.

“I think the odd cigar smoke in this panel is supposed to signal that turn”

Umm, not to rain on the weekly Watchmen hype parade, that is going in superhero “fan” circles since it’s puplication, but yeah, let’s not embarass yourself more than you have to, ok?

It’s nicely written, nobody said any different – but about as over dramatic and over played like a high school play, in parts. (see Rorschach)

Plus, yes, the plot is fairly retarded. The ending quite so.

and those Image – cut – scene change – text (or vice versa) juxtapositions,
MAN were they getting old after the third one. (the whole run has like dozens)

Have to agree with your last point: Alan Moore that uses that technique waayy too much in his various works, it gets tired after a while.

Travis Pelkie

July 31, 2010 at 5:55 pm

I like how someone like Tuomas does a wonderful panel by panel examination of this page, which Brian has already shown is full of foreshadowing and other notable elements that feature in in later issues, and Tuomas points out things that I hadn’t noticed before, and someone else comes in to say, yeah, just because you can write how something is really interesting the way all the elements come together, you’re embarassing yourself and the whole story is “retarded”.

Because everyone who has praised one of the finest superhero graphic novels ever must be a fool to see that there are interesting things on almost every page. Jeez.

Tuomas, the other thing I notice about Nelson’s posture in panel 6 is how he’s covering his crotch — emasculated by the Comedian’s comments. Moore and Gibbons continue to amaze 25 years later.

Because Watchmen is literature, so imagine that — we apply some literary criticism to the book. Because it can help enrich the reading experience even for those of us that have read it several times.

Panel 6: Nelson’s also starting to let his index cards fall to the floor. He’s already lost.

Calling Watchmen “retarded” seems like a very cheap cry for attention.

What the hell is a “puplication,”????

One thing I wanted to ask, that Tuomas brought up. I don’t dispute that Captain Metropolis is gay, but is it actually explicitly stated in Watchmen itself? I know it is stated in the RPG guides that Moore actually helped co-write, but is it definite in Watchmen itself? I’m guessing that if it is explicit, it’s in that Silk Spectre interview, but it’s been a while since I read the book. (and by the way, given that Moore did help co-write the RPG stuff back around the time Watchmen came out, indicates that he was never completely opposed to doing more with the Watchmen universe. It’s just that when you keep getting screwed over with things, like he has with DC, you don’t go back for more unless you’re stupid or a glutton for punishment.)

There’s another point with that — at this point, the Hooded Justice, Cap’s lover, is dead, right, and I believe that the RPG also says that the Comedian murdered him (or maybe that’s just been fan speculation, I don’t remember for sure). So if Cap doesn’t know that, in a way, the Comedian has already emasculated him, this is just icing on the cake. (I doubt he’d invite the Comedian if he knew he had killed his lover, no matter what crimefighting skills the Comedian might bring to the team.) And I believe that the Comedian would also be the only one on this page that would know that Cap is gay (as it seemed like an open secret to the original 40s team).

One other point, Tuomas, I don’t know that the “social evils” Cap is against necessarily peg him as a “reactionary conservative”, maybe just a conservative. I hate to quote Nixon (although given what book we’re talking about, it fits), but the “silent majority” believed that those things were “social evils”. It’s just that the 60s got society as a whole to be more liberal about these. But it’s interesting to wonder whether Cap was really upset about these things, or if it was another front (to try to appear macho and non-gay, perhaps).

Gee, it’s amazing we can get this much intriguing bits out of a “retarded” story.

Although he deserves it, I won’t contribute to taking down this mckracken guy. Let me just point out to you, in case you ever read this, or in case you didn’t notice this, that in the section you quoted (“I think the odd cigar smoke in this panel is supposed to signal that turn”),Tuomas isn’t assigning some deep significance to the image, just pointing out that the smoke is the way Gibbons showed the character physically turned around. A little way of showing motion. No big deal, and not “embarrassing.” (You mispelled ‘embarrass’ in addition to ‘publication.’)

And actually, I found Tuomas’s point about the cigar smoke fascinating, as it’s something that you wouldn’t necessarily notice (I certainly didn’t), but shows the attention to detail that Gibbons has. I believe that Gibbons started out in surveying or architecture, so spatial relationships are something he’d be really good at.

The world’s smartest man brings about world peace via dropping a papermache squid onto New York.
Yeah, that’s what I call retarded.

Well, no, it was an actual squid creation thing. Not just papier mache.

Of course, since that was the element of Watchmen used from an old Outer Limits episode, I guess that show was retarded too.

And of course, you could also look at the squid as a MacGuffin, and not necessarily required to tell the story. You know, like how the movie didn’t need it.

And too, the “peace” brought is very fragile, as the implication is that as soon as Rorschach’s diary is published, the whole game is given away and the world goes back to business as usual.

Making four observations about a seven panel page is hardly “unpacking” that page. At least the column spurred some interesting comments.

“Release the Mckraken!”

The squid still made more sense than the movie, where Manhattan going nuts would somehow bring everyone to the States’ aid?

Citizen Scribbler

August 1, 2010 at 6:54 pm

I didn’t notice the lack of a New York Times or the cigar smoke thing either before. Thanks for pointing those out, Tuomas! Sharing ideas helps make the story more interactive. Here are my thoughts:

-How can you tell that the Comedian’s nose is broken? I can’t see it.

-Rorschach’s coat also doesn’t bear the blood splatter stain it acquired when he killed the two dogs. After that, HE NEVER WASHED IT AGAIN!

-I wouldn’t say that the Silhouette was an unsympathetic character, and she was a lesbian. In fact, we’re meant to feel bad for her because she was kicked out of the team when the press outed her, even though there were other homosexuals in the Minutemen. But yeah, Captain Metropolis was a conservative tool as well as a closeted homosexual. This plays into his desire to repress speech and drugs.

-All the friends and colleagues of Captain Metropolis referred to him as “Nelly” in private, it was just their nickname for him. However, Nelly is not just typically a girl’s name, it is actually an old school slang term. From the American Heritage Dictionary: “nel·ly or nel·lie (nl)
n. pl. nel·lies Offensive Slang, Used as a disparaging term for an effeminate homosexual man.”

-It is explicit in the book that CM is gay, but Comedian may not be the only one to know. Laurie may have been told by her mother by that point. And Dr. Manhattan certainly knows since he exists in all times simultaneously and I’m sure somebody mentioned it to him at some point. And Ozymandias is so clever he probably knew just by shaking the guy’s hand; not to mention the fact that he had investigated the disappearance of Hooded Justice (when his first encounter with the Comedian occurred), and that info was probably turned up since they had been a couple for a long period.

-If Hooded Justice was truly killed in his final encounter with the Comedian, then this is indeed a wicked twist of the knife for Captain Metropolis. That the Comedian murdered Hooded Justice is made explicit in the RPG material, though not in the actual book (even though it is strongly suggested, including on a thematic level). However, the RPG material is not to be taken as entirely cannon. For one thing, Moore’s participation in them was limited. He approved a lot of Winniger’s ideas, but he didn’t actually sit down and compose any new material. Secondly, there are flat-out inconsistencies in some of the material, most especially noticeable with dates. There are some folks who propose that both Hooded Justice and Captain Metropolis faked their own deaths and even have a cameo in the first issue and I tend to prefer that version, but I think both are possible unless Alan Moore actually comes out and puts his foot down on the matter.

I think giving the world an excuse to back down from mutual annihilation by faking hostile contact with an alien isn’t that far-fetched at all, even more a universe more “realistic” than the typical comic book of the time. Perhaps all stories are “retarded” by the definition intended here: Don Quixote is about some moron who mistakes a windmill for a giant. Hoosiers is about some hicks who won a basketball game nobody remembers using outdated rules and the Wizard of Oz has a scarecrow who can talk- as if! Watchmen is about as “retarded” as the Beatles in my book.

-Citizen Scribbler

Conflict of interest alert… Mr Kraken is dissing the squid?

-I wouldn’t say that the Silhouette was an unsympathetic character, and she was a lesbian. In fact, we’re meant to feel bad for her because she was kicked out of the team when the press outed her, even though there were other homosexuals in the Minutemen.

Obviously the book gives too little information on Silhouette to judge her as a character. Yes, we’re supposed to feel sympathy for her for getting kicked out and subsequently being murdered, but that doesn’t tell us anything what she was like as a person. The only line she has in the comic, in issue #2, is the somewhat nasty remark she makes to Sally about her hiding her Polishness for publicity reasons. (This line becomes kinda hypocritical when we find out that Silhouette was hiding her lesbianity for similar reasons – though of course Silhouette has a better reason for doing that, what with homosexuality having a much bigger social stigma.) So based on the minuscule amount of information we have, she doesn’t really come off as a particularly sympathetic character.

There are some folks who propose that both Hooded Justice and Captain Metropolis faked their own deaths and even have a cameo in the first issue and I tend to prefer that version, but I think both are possible unless Alan Moore actually comes out and puts his foot down on the matter.

That cameo is in issue #1, on page 25, in the fourth panel. On the foreground we see two men being quite intimate with each other, and they do kinda look like older versions of Rolf Müller and Cap Metropolis. Also, their neckties are drawn in a way that makes them resemble superhero domino masks. Of course they could just be some random, insignificant couple, but they’re awfully prominent in that one panel, and Watchmen is not a comic known for wasting a detail. Since Moore wrote the RPG material where Hooded Justice was Rolf Müller, and was killed by The Comedian, my theory is that this little detail suggesting Nelson and Rolf lived happily ever after was something Gibbons added on his own accord. In some interview Gibbons denied that the couple was supposed to be Cap and HJ, but maybe he just didn’t want to go against Moore’s “official” story, leaving that panel as a small visual wink pointing towards his own theory of what happened to those two characters.

Well, Tuomas, glad you’re back here. However, I tend to believe Gibbons’ denial about the couple. I think Cronin did a CBLR about it, and Gibbons said something to the effect that — it wasn’t intended at the time, but it seems to fit, so I wish I had intended it! Given that he was working to get the book out in a timely manner, I figure it’s just one of those incidental things that wasn’t intended.

If you can find it, there’s a book Fantagraphics put out years ago (20 or so) called “The New Comics” that features a lot of interviews with a lot of great comics people, and there’s a Moore/Gibbons Watchmen panel moderated by some Neil Gaiman guy (wonder if he ever did anything else in comics?), and they talk about how there were a lot of coincidences and incidental, unintended things that popped up (the symmetry issue, I think #5, was mentioned in this regard).

And I gotta say, if “lesbianity” isn’t a word (I think it’d probably be “lesbianism”), it should be.

I think Cronin did a CBLR about it, and Gibbons said something to the effect that — it wasn’t intended at the time, but it seems to fit, so I wish I had intended it!

I’d buy Gibbons’ explanation if I could come up with some alternative explanation why the couple is in that panel… First of all, they’re not just some random background characters, they’re on the foreground of the panel, so that the reader automatically notices them. So there must be some reason Moore and/or Gibbons chose to put them there. What could that reason be? If they were supposed to be just some random diners, like the other people in the panel, why make them an older gay couple? As sad as it is, that kind of a detail is something the reader is much more likely to notice than if Gibbons had drawn a straight couple, or two men in a less intimate position. Maybe the point of the couple was to illustrate that the alternate world of Watchmen is more tolerant towards gays than our world? But nothing else on the pages of Watchmen suggests this is the case. Maybe they really were really supposed to be just random extras, and Moore and/or Gibbons chose to make them gay for diversity’s sake? But nowhere else in Watchmen do we see any gay or lesbian couples as random extras, all the homosexuals in the comic are called attention to. So would Moore and/or Gibbons really just add an random gay couple to the panel, knowing that the reader would pay attention to the detail, and on top of that make them resemble and be about the same age as the only other significant gay couple in the story (Cap and HJ)? Sounds like too much of a coincidence to me.

Citizen Scribbler

August 2, 2010 at 10:06 am

Well, we only see one reference to a chicken with extra legs and it is in the story to show how having “super-heroes” has changed food technology. The gay couple as extras is shown to demonstrate how super-heroes also helped accelerate public acceptance of openly gay couples, you wouldn’t need to show it more than once.

Moore did NOT write the RPG material; he was consulted on it over the telephone by their author, Ray Winniger. Based on the Gibbons interview (which I’ve read as well) I believe that HJ and CM were originally intended to be dead, but that the interpretation of them being alive is entirely supportable as well. Did the Comedian kill HJ for once beating him up the same way Ozy would later murder the Comedian over the same petty slight? Is this only something Ozy has assumed or did things between Comedian and HJ go down differently?

I still believe the Silhouette is presented as a sympathetic character. Hollis Mason writes about her in his book and mentions that her first headline case was investigating and exposing a child pornographer- which I’d say speaks better of her as a hero than, say, HJ, whose M.O. was to drop into an alley and start crippling muggers. Also, unlike HJ and CM, who not only slept with each other, but also a slew of young men in what were essentially underground rough sex clubs, the Silhouette was in a committed relationship with another woman. She was a Jewish lesbian Austrian refugee whose family escaped the Third Reich and who put on a costume to fight sexual exploitation as well as for kicks- that’s sounds pretty darn cool to me. And just look at her style- she looks like some sort of S & M proto-beatnick. Her tragedy was being TOO ahead of her time for her own good.

Yes, her remark to the Silk Spectre was a little tease, but she was only trying to be honest about things. It’s not her fault if SS was ashamed of being Polish. The Silhouette wasn’t ashamed about being a lesbian. It’s implied that the reason she got caught by the press was because she didn’t go to any pains to hide her sexual orientation. She thought her team would stand with her, but they let her go, and Silk Spectre, even though she never liked the Silhouette personally, felt extremely guilty and expressed this in her Probe interview. Even after being kicked out of the Minutemen, she continued fighting crime as the world’s only openly gay crimefighter, until her untimely death.

-Citizen Scribbler

Well, we only see one reference to a chicken with extra legs and it is in the story to show how having “super-heroes” has changed food technology. The gay couple as extras is shown to demonstrate how super-heroes also helped accelerate public acceptance of openly gay couples, you wouldn’t need to show it more than once.

I disagree. One four-legged chicken is enough to demonstrate that animal breeding is different in the world of Watchmen, because four-legged chickens don’t exist in our world. One gay couple that shows their affection publically in a restaurant isn’t enough to demonstrate that the world of Watchmen is more tolerant towards homosexuality, because such couples did exist in our world in 1986, it’s just that they were rare. To have only one such couple appear within the 12 issues of Watchmen would only suggest they’re equally rare in that world. Besides, nothing in the comic implies that the emergence costumed heroes helped to change the attitudes towards gays in any way. Why would it have? That Joey is spreading the pink triangle posters (which, according to her, often get torn up), the way the news vendor reacts to the poster, the hushed tones in which Sally speaks about the issue of homosexuality in the interview in issue #9 (which is from 1976, only 10 years in the past) – none of these things suggest that the world of Watchmen is any less homophobic than our world was in 1986.

If Moore didn’t write the RPG material, maybe it was his idea to put the couple in issue #1, as an alternative explanation of what happened to HJ and Cap Metropolis. I still find it suspicious that the only other male gay couple in Watchmen besides Rolf and Nelson would just by sheer coincidence happen to look like them. It’s also worth noting that both Rolf’s and Nelson’s “deaths” happened in a manner that would’ve made it possible for them to fake it. In “Under the Hood”, Hollis Mason says that a “badly decomposed body” was found, and it was “tentatively identified” as Rolf Müller. And Rorschach mentions that Nelson was “decapitated in a car crash”. So in both cases the bodies were in a state that would’ve made it possible for them to belong to someone else. To expand on the “fake death” theory: maybe The Comedian did find out Rolf Müller was HJ, and maybe he did try to kill Müller, but didn’t quite succeed. This might’ve given Müller enough of a reason to fake his death and go underground, especially if he knew about The Comedian’s shady government connections. As for Cap Manhattan, he was a public figure, so continuing the relationship with Rolf carried a risk of exposing him. Maybe after years of consideration, and realizing his public career as a costumed hero was completely and utterly over, he decided to take the same route as Rolf, so they could live on as a couple without a constant fear of exposure.

The idea about Hooded Justice & Captain Metropolis being the gay couple in issue #1 is a neat fan theory, but I never bought it personally because it doesn’t make too much sense in the context of Watchmen’s plot for two reasons:

1) I just double-checked my copy of Watchmen, and the disappearance of HJ occured in the early 1950s and the death of Captain Metropolis happened in 1974. Personally, if I was going to run off & disappear with my lover, I’d try to do it somewhere in the same DECADE.

2) Anyone remember how Capt. Metropolis died? According to Rorschach, he was decapitated in an auto accident. Unless Nelson Gardner happened to find a conveniently-headless corpse that he could then pass off as his own, how exactly do you FAKE that?

Dr. Manhattan suggests at the end of Watchmen that Ozymandias’ plan won’t see lasting success. And this scene perfectly illustrates why. It captures the Greek concept of hamartia or the fatal flaw. However brilliant Adrian may be, his entire effort is doomed from the start by his own arrogance.

He’s going to prove that solving the world’s problems are just an organizational challenge that he’s going to appoint himself — the right person — to manage. His ultimate solution is based on fear and mass psychology and requires that only he know ever know the nature of the plan.

Unfortunately, fear is a great motivator in the short term, but a poor motivator long term because — no matter how terrifying a situation — brain research shows that you are less afraid of stimuli that you consciously perceive than you are of stimuli that you unconsciously perceive. In other words, when an unknown danger becomes a known danger, it becomes less frightening and you are less likely to exhibit atypical behavior, such as making sudden radical changes in how you run your society.

There is a way of making permanent, lasting change in the world. The U.S. has seen tectonic shifts around social injustices over the last 50, 100, 200 years. But, it’s slow and it requires everyone’s participation. The morons and the geniuses. As the smartest guy in the world, I don’t think Ozymandias could tolerate or accept the idea that his hopes for change were unavoidably dependent on other people.

Re: Silhouette: if one goes by the idea that there’s no wasting in the details, it is curious that Silhouette does come off in her only on-panel appearance as a bit of a b***h. Hollis Mason and Sally Jupiter indeed show regret about kicking her out and all that, but it should be noted that those are their own narrations given years afterwards, and it is only natural to talk only good of the dead, especially since both of them feel somewhat guilty about it.
Child pornography thing was indeed a point to show that she was fighting a good fight, but I must say the vibe I got from her as a person was somewhat negative.

I’m with stealthwise – Zach could have stuck with the ending. Changing the ending meant;

Robert Deschaines’ brain wasn’t kidnapped;

Max Shea, Hira Manish and the other artists weren’t shanghai’ed, and then blown up;

Everyone at the Garden survived the Pink Triangle concert;

Hector Godfrey never had that excellent rant at the end;

And most importantly…if the “McKraken”, as some of you here term it, was never being created, what put Edward Blake in such a state that he was crying to Moloch, and then so despondent that Adrian was finally able to take him out?

Now, as to the assertions of certain characteristics of certain characters…the beautiful thing about the story is that not everything was spelled out; because of that, if you take your time, each re-reading presents to you yet another facet of story you may have glossed over initially. This is the unique part of the art form that makes comic books what they are.

Face it…there’s nothing like them anywhere in literature or art – that’s why I’ve over 17,000 of them in my personal collection.

Brian…any chance you’ll cover Twilight Of The Superheroes?

randypan the goat boy

May 24, 2011 at 4:28 pm

I have a sneaky suspicion that mycracken is one of these guys that will argue the artistic merit of Rob liefelds newest comic ” DEATHSPAWN OF BLOOD BLOOD” . But in all seriousness watchmen isnt for everybody. Its kind of like showing a dog a card trick. There are just some people in the world that settle for mediocrity. A good example of that is the sucess of twilight. Why go see/ rent the Godfather when vin diesel has another car movie comming out soon. We live in a world full of choices. and not everychoice that is good for me is going to be good for anyone else. I loved the watchmen, I also read and re read every dc comic with the word crisis in it. And just because i wouldnt wipe my ass with youngblood does not mean it isnt good. The trick to watchmen is to know that it isnt so much a superhero comic as it is a complex novel that skewers the superhero and all of the bells and whistles that go with them. I have read it about 50 times and tp be honest with you…im done with it. Alan Moore can go write all the scummy porno comics he wants. I read his work that I enjoyed and the rest of it can be used to clean up a hobo’s dickcheese. …Swamp thing good…lost girls bad…killing joke good… league of extraordinary gentlemen black dossiere…bad . see its easy and fun

Leave a Comment

 

Categories

Review Copies

Comics Should Be Good accepts review copies. Anything sent to us will (for better or for worse) end up reviewed on the blog. See where to send the review copies.

Browse the Archives