Before Watchmen

Steven Clubb · 01 Mar 2005

Drew Vin wrote:

Steven Clubb wrote:

I know I had put forth the shotgun theory, with each creator bringing one aspect of Moore to the table.

I'm not angry at DC doing what it always does (its like being angry at rain for being wet), I'm just mystified why they didn't do it 20 years ago. Coupled with DC's offer to give Watchmen back, I just believe that there's some language in the contract that worried the legal department. DC has never jumped through these kinds of hoops to not piss off a creator they had already pissed off.

20 years ago, that would be 1992, right? I'm not sure a Watchmen prequel/sequel would've done well at this time. When did the Death of Superman get planned?

Also I think everyone is right about Levitz was vetoing it back then. Notice that after he stepped down, DC went full speed ahead with a lot of things, like the relaunching/rebooting after Flashpoint, the reprinting of Warren Ellis' Shoot story from Hellblazer and Morrison's Flex Mentallo, and now the Before Watchmen project.

Flex Mentallo was only ever out-of-print because of a Charles Atlas lawsuit. When the court ruled that it was protected as parody, they went forward with the original plan to collect it.

Hanzo the Razor · 24 Jun 2007

Li'l Jay wrote:

It would be an interesting flipside if the rights reverted to Moore for Watchmen, and he started authorizing a bunch of hacks to publish more stories.

It would be interesting since it'd be completely out-of-character for Moore.

Li'l Jay · 28 May 2006

Hanzo the Razor wrote:

Li'l Jay wrote:

It would be an interesting flipside if the rights reverted to Moore for Watchmen, and he started authorizing a bunch of hacks to publish more stories.

It would be interesting since it'd be completely out-of-character for Moore.

It wouldn't happen, it's the "rights" issue that would be turned on its head. Sometimes to ponder things, you have to be able to conceptualize, and not go "Alan Moore wouldn't do that."

Because if you make a rule based on Alan Moore's unique attributes, then the rule doesn't fit so well for the next circumstance that goes along.

This is more about the policy issue -- is it always better to have creations "revert?" Would we like to see the Estate of the long dead Schuster family cranking out unauthorized Superboy stories?

Hanzo the Razor · 24 Jun 2007

I wouldn't care... especially since the current Superman / Superboy comics are pure ass.

RobertSwanderson · 01 Jan 2007

I have a Godfather/Watchmen crossover fanfic where Moe Green unites the five families by teleporting a giant, dead "alien" federal agent into the heart of Little Italy.

"Do it? Michael, I’m not some schmoe here. I made my bones when you were going out with cheerleaders. I did it thirty-five minutes ago."

Ocean Doot · 25 Oct 2007

Li'l Jay wrote:

Hanzo the Razor wrote:

Li'l Jay wrote:

It would be an interesting flipside if the rights reverted to Moore for Watchmen, and he started authorizing a bunch of hacks to publish more stories.

It would be interesting since it'd be completely out-of-character for Moore.

It wouldn't happen, it's the "rights" issue that would be turned on its head. Sometimes to ponder things, you have to be able to conceptualize, and not go "Alan Moore wouldn't do that."

Because if you make a rule based on Alan Moore's unique attributes, then the rule doesn't fit so well for the next circumstance that goes along.

This is more about the policy issue -- is it always better to have creations "revert?" Would we like to see the Estate of the long dead Schuster family cranking out unauthorized Superboy stories?

The Estate of the long dead Schuster family would never do something like that.

Stephen Strange · 29 Jul 2005

RobertSwanderson wrote:

I have a Godfather/Watchmen crossover fanfic where Moe Green unites the five families by teleporting a giant, dead "alien" federal agent into the heart of Little Italy.

"Do it? Michael, I’m not some schmoe here. I made my bones when you were going out with cheerleaders. I did it thirty-five minutes ago."

Simon · 26 Oct 2006

Li'l Jay wrote:

Sometimes to ponder things, you have to be able to conceptualize, and not go "Alan Moore wouldn't do that."

Because if you make a rule based on Alan Moore's unique attributes, then the rule doesn't fit so well for the next circumstance that goes along.

You mean like getting old Charlton characters and re-conceptualizing them in a world on the brink of nuclear war?

Hanzo the Razor · 24 Jun 2007

Simon wrote:

Li'l Jay wrote:

Sometimes to ponder things, you have to be able to conceptualize, and not go "Alan Moore wouldn't do that."

Because if you make a rule based on Alan Moore's unique attributes, then the rule doesn't fit so well for the next circumstance that goes along.

You mean like getting old Charlton characters and re-conceptualizing them in a world on the brink of nuclear war?

And then being told he couldn't, so he creates characters and a universe far more interesting and unique than the Charlton properties, and then puts out best-selling graphic novel of all time?

Rafael · 03 Dec 2006

Hanzo the Razor wrote:

Simon wrote:

Li'l Jay wrote:

Sometimes to ponder things, you have to be able to conceptualize, and not go "Alan Moore wouldn't do that."

Because if you make a rule based on Alan Moore's unique attributes, then the rule doesn't fit so well for the next circumstance that goes along.

You mean like getting old Charlton characters and re-conceptualizing them in a world on the brink of nuclear war?

And then being told he couldn't, so he creates characters and a universe far more interesting and unique than the Charlton properties, and then puts out best-selling graphic novel of all time?

And then that graphic novel gets adapted as a lamish movie?

Rafael · 03 Dec 2006

Wait, what was the point, again?

Hanzo the Razor · 24 Jun 2007

THEY SAID BAD THINGS ABOUT ALAN MOORE AND THAT'S NOT ALLOWED

Hanzo the Razor · 24 Jun 2007

In fact, I will create a rival sig banner to match your Grant Morrison sig banner. Then, you'll be sorry.

YOU'LL ALL BE SORRY.

Rafael · 03 Dec 2006

OH YEAH? THEN I WILL DISABLE SIGNATURES. WHO'S GONNA BE LAUGHING THEN, EH?

Simon · 26 Oct 2006

Rafael wrote:

Wait, what was the point, again?

............

......I....I think we were talking about Dr. Manhattan's glowing wang, and Glycon and Alan Moore's beard and....

....Nathan, I'm cold.

Hanzo the Razor · 24 Jun 2007

Rafael wrote:

OH YEAH? THEN I WILL DISABLE SIGNATURES. WHO'S GONNA BE LAUGHING THEN, EH?

YOUR MOM, BITCH

OH SNAP

Steven Clubb · 01 Mar 2005

Rafael wrote:

Hanzo the Razor wrote:

Simon wrote:

Li'l Jay wrote:

Sometimes to ponder things, you have to be able to conceptualize, and not go "Alan Moore wouldn't do that."

Because if you make a rule based on Alan Moore's unique attributes, then the rule doesn't fit so well for the next circumstance that goes along.

You mean like getting old Charlton characters and re-conceptualizing them in a world on the brink of nuclear war?

And then being told he couldn't, so he creates characters and a universe far more interesting and unique than the Charlton properties, and then puts out best-selling graphic novel of all time?

And then that graphic novel gets adapted as a lamish movie?

While Blue Beetle gets shot in the head in a desperate bid for attention.

Rafael · 03 Dec 2006

Hanzo the Razor wrote:

Rafael wrote:

OH YEAH? THEN I WILL DISABLE SIGNATURES. WHO'S GONNA BE LAUGHING THEN, EH?

YOUR MOM, BITCH

OH SNAP

I'M UTTERLY AND COMPLETELY OWNED.

Hanzo the Razor · 24 Jun 2007

I FEEL GREAT ABOUT MYSELF AND MY LIFE NOW

Rafael · 03 Dec 2006

WELL IM NOW IN A PIT OF SORROW AND DESPAIR.

ENJOY YOUR VICTORY, ASSHOLE.

Hanzo the Razor · 24 Jun 2007

THIS IS WHAT GOD MUST FEEL LIKE

Rafael · 03 Dec 2006

WE SHALL MEET AGAIN.

Before Watchmen

Who is WANline