"Before Watchmen" DC Entertainment announces Watchmen Prequels

**basil81** · 02-02-2012, 12:10 PM

Originally Posted by ssss6eight1

They could all (with the exceptions of Jae Lee and Len Wein) probably make just as much money by making a creator-owned, original content series-- which, I don't think anyone would argue, holds more artistic merit than this-- as they would by assisting in furthering the reason why Alan Moore quit making comics.

It'd be one thing if they needed the money and DC offered them the book, but I don't think that Andy Kubert, JMS or Adam Hughes are in dire financial stress, or that this is the most creatively satisfying endeavor they could've taken.

My argument isn't predicated on the artists being financially distressed. It's their job, what they're paid to do. When I made the point about saying no to money in today's economy, few would argue that the state of the economy worldwide is up in the air, whether you're Adam Hughes or not.
If they wanted to do a creator owned title, I'm sure that's what they would have done. And furthermore, why should any of them care why Alan Moore quit doing comics? He made that choice, not them.

**SHAMWOW!** · 02-02-2012, 04:51 PM

http://www.comicsalliance.com/2012/0...men-babylon-5/

J. Michael Straczynski was the most outspoken participant in yesterday's press tour of DC Comics' controversial new initiative

Read More: http://www.comicsalliance.com/2012/0...#ixzz1lGuMfQm2

**cbikle** · 02-02-2012, 05:33 PM

Thanks for the link, even though it made me angry.

Why is JMS always on the wrong ***king side of the issue ?

I predict that by 2015, Rorshach and/or the Comedian will be members of the Justice League.

**shinolahead** · 02-02-2012, 06:32 PM

Holy shit. DC OWNS some characters that they figure they can make money off of. They have decent creators willing to work on the project. There is no real reason not to. If I see one of these at the comic shop and the art is cool I will buy it.

Or maybe I'll mistake this for a moral quandary and get my panties in a bunch.

The artistic integrity of Watchmen was decided when Moore and Gibbons produced it under contract for DC.

**Popninja** · 02-02-2012, 06:38 PM

Originally Posted by shinolahead

The artistic integrity of Watchmen was decided when Moore and Gibbons produced it under contract for DC.

Yeah...25 years ago. Gee, I wonder why it took them so long to "figure they can make money off of" their characters?

**basil81** · 02-02-2012, 07:29 PM

Originally Posted by Popninja

Yeah...25 years ago. Gee, I wonder why it took them so long to "figure they can make money off of" their characters?

The movie brought new found attention to it, and subsequently a whole bunch of people who weren't into comics bought the book. I figure DC wants to some more of those Watchmen dollars from the new fans and believe they can do so with new stories using some of the hottest talent in comics today. Frankly, I'm surprised they didn't do this right after the movie, which is when I expected this to actually happen.

**shinolahead** · 02-02-2012, 07:34 PM

"Gee", I don't wonder that at all. They've been trying to milk this cow for years. Took them ages to get the movie sorted out.

***or what basil81 said.

**CyberLord** · 02-02-2012, 10:02 PM

Originally Posted by Bruce

I know you will disagree and probably go out on a hugh rant about this reply, but I'm calling crap.
These guys are no more selling out by working on these book than they are every time they work on Superman, Batman, Spider-man or any other company owned character.
You can dislike them working on characters in a world that should probably stay self contained, but I would rather have this talent handling it than second rate creators.
I'm not overly interested in the project, but I'm not going to get upset about it. And it's ridiculous to say they have sold out for doing their job.
They owe nothing to Moore or that book.

I'm no expert on "Watchmen" or Alan Moore, but if what I am reading on ComicsAlliance is correct, Alan Moore and the artist who drew the book signed contracts that would return the ownership of the characters to them!
If that is true and DC has manipulated things to deprive the creators of the ownership of their creations, then that is a horse of a different color.
Before you argue with me about contracts, please understand that I negotiated, and wrote contracts for many years in my previous job. Yes, if there was a loop-hole in the contract that allows DC to retain control of these characters then LEGALLY they can do what they want. But there is a world of difference between legal and moral.
By the way, don't most DC characters always choose the moral right over the legal right?!

Also, by way of disclosure, I am thinking of buying the Adam Hughes book. Thinking! I have not made a decision yet. Actually, knowing me, I probably won't buy it if Alan Moore really objects to these books. I won't piss on an artist who feels he has been cheated. Contract be damned!

**CyberLord** · 02-02-2012, 10:06 PM

Originally Posted by ssss6eight1

They could all (with the exceptions of Jae Lee and Len Wein) probably make just as much money by making a creator-owned, original content series-- which, I don't think anyone would argue, holds more artistic merit than this-- as they would by assisting in furthering the reason why Alan Moore quit making comics.

It'd be one thing if they needed the money and DC offered them the book, but I don't think that Andy Kubert, JMS or Adam Hughes are in dire financial stress, or that this is the most creatively satisfying endeavor they could've taken.

Funny you mention Adam Hughes! There was a piece on Adam Hughes earlier this week or late last week where he explained how he will not do "All-Star Wonder Woman" because it takes too long to create interior pages and he makes more money on the covers. Now we get this?!