Once Again I Have Failed

“Why?”

This is most likely the first question that not only went through the head of every fan of WATCHMEN upon hearing about BEFORE WATCHMEN, but by their own admission, the same question that was asked by the writers of the upcoming mini-series.

But there are two forms of this question. The first, and the most expected by DC comics, was “Why do you think you have the right to do this?!”

I did not ask that question. I have encountered too many beautiful retellings (and perhaps improved retellings) of stories to ask it. I didn’t ask it when Steven Moffat and Mark Gattis announced their revamping of SHERLOCK (though I’m sure some did), and upon watching it, who would want to live in a world where it didn’t exist? Peter Jackson’s THE LORD OF THE RINGS. The Coen Brothers’ NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN or TRUE GRIT. James Cameron made ALIENS, a sequel to someone else’s work. Brad Bird’s MISSION IMPOSSIBLE: GHOST PROTOCOL. Christopher Nolan’s THE DARK KNIGHT. Andrew Stanton’s upcoming JOHN CARTER. Even Jeb Stuart and Steven E deSouza’s DIE HARD is a total reimagining of a book with a different protagonist and title. And Shakespeare, the majority of Shakespeare’s plays were re-tellings of historical stories.

Sure, there are numerous failures, but if it’s wrong to remake stories only if they’re bad, then one’s opposition isn’t they don’t have the right, only that they’re not up to the task. Some would complain it’s because Alan Moore is still alive, but the internet is filled with people who desperately hope that someone, somewhere, can wrest STAR WARS and INDIANA JONES away from George Lucas. Again, it would seem the problem isn’t the right to do it, but that they’re not up to the task.

To me, complaining that no one has the right to write stories about WATCHMEN seems a bizarre standpoint to have, considering what treasures have been made from other similarly inspired projects, throughout human history.

I asked, I feel, a more reasonable question, which was “Why do think this is a good idea?”

I actually have an open heart to this project. But I am genuinely baffled at the reasoning behind it’s creation and would like to be convinced it’s a good idea worth my time and money (especially as I have spent hours writing this post). I have three concerns and I find the official responses we’ve had to them are simply inadequate to the task of convincing me to the virtue of the project.

Now, one might suggest it’s too early to expect such reassurances and that DC comics have no obligation to reassure me. I find this problematic as my concerns are not only easily predicted, but DC comics has tried to alleviate them, but the responses I’ve heard only seek to compoundmy concerns. As for their obligation; I’m their target audience.

Concern #1: Alan Moore is personally disgusted by the very idea of BEFORE WATCHMEN
While I pointed out that my concern isn’t that DC comics don’t have a right to tell more WATCHMEN stories, I think it’s perfectly reasonable to ask why they’d want to do it while the creator is not only alive, but still considered to be a master craftsman, and very openly angry about it. If these weren’t true, there would be little concern.

• Alan Moore has openly refused to be involved in any way with the process — This response suggests that Alan Moore’s contempt for the project is unfounded because he doesn’t know what it’s about, and if he were to be involved, he might be happy. But all this does is remind me why Alan Moore has openly refused to have anything to do with DC comics. Yet, I can’t really fault those involved with the project on this point. Unfortunately, the press releases have decided to try to solve this concern with, what I find to be rather distasteful thoughts.

• Alan Moore has no moral high ground because he’s always reinterpreting characters — This is a pathetic argument; it’s not wrong that they’re doing this, it’s only wrong that Alan Moore complains about it? It doesn’t actually address the concern that what they’re doing is derivative or distasteful, only that it doesn’t matter because Alan Moore made a career out of it. Despite the fact that none of his reinterpretations could ever be considered anything other than improvements of original works, or at least, mastery of them. And, to my knowledge, he has never done it over the objections of the original creator, let alone claimed they lack a foundation for taking offence. All this argument does is point out precisely why we’re right to be concerned about a project based on characters created by a masterful writer over his express wishes.

• DC comics has the legal rights to do this — This is something that’s been pointed out by numerous bloggers, not DC comics (to my knowledge), and it’s an irrelevant argument. Just because DC has the legal rights to do this doesn’t mean Alan Moore has no right to be furious, nor does it mean people who love WATCHMEN have no right to be concerned as to the quality of the project.

• Alan Moore’s blessings or misgivings are irrelevant — This is utterly disingenuous. Everyone involved in BEFORE WATCHMEN praises Alan Moore for his work. Staczynski, Azarello, Cooke, and Wein wouldn’t even touch this if Alan wanted to write it, and would love to have his blessing. While it is true that his attitude to the project has nothing to do with the quality of BEFORE WATCHMEN, it’s distasteful to suggest that not only are Alan Moore’s opinions largely irrelevant, but, combined with his refusal to be involved, that his misgivings are unfounded. Again, a dismissal of Alan Moore’s anger at the project only concerns me more in regards to their representation of the material.

• Everyone does retellings about Superman and Batman, so why not WATCHMEN — What I find so absolutely repellant about this argument is its hypocrisy. Can you imagine the outrage J Michael Straczynski would have if Warner Bros not only did a BABYLON 4 or DILGAR WAR series, but they did it without any involvement from him, and over his protestations? Would Brian Azzarello be happy if DC comics just went ahead and published 99 BULLETS without his approval? The legal rights for DC or Warner Bros to do such a thing is simply irrelevant to the indignation they’d have to such a project. What’s even more bizarre is how people are desperately campaigning that Siegel, Shuster, Finger, Kirby, Ditko and others deserve more recognition and say in characters they created decades ago. It is a blatant double standard to in any way to suggest that Alan Moore is unreasonable to see his work ‘continued’ without his consent. It is this key point that drove me to writing this.

Concern #2: WATCHMEN is of exceeding quality
The problem here is that BEFORE WATCHMEN has to not only compete with the inherent quality of WATCHMEN, but also the fact WATCHMEN has remained consistently beloved and appreciated for over 20 years, an appreciation that has increased in the wake of the ill-conceived WATCHMEN movie.

• The writers of BEFORE WATCHMEN truly do love WATCHMEN — While I’m absolutely sure that this is true, I have to ask, “So what?” I’m sure they also really like MACBETH. Do they honestly think that it would allay fears of a lacking quality to the work if they simply professed they liked the original? Indeed, this argument actually counterintuitively instills concern for the project because if the writers do so love and adhere to the original with reverence, then it only compounds the question of “Why did you think this was a good idea?”

• DC comics is using top-talent to make BEFORE WATCHMEN — This is the crux of the matter for this concern. One’s concern for Andrew Stanton’s JOHN CARTER is utterly dependent on one’s admiration for Andrew Stanton. Imagine if Stanley Kubrick were announced as the director for a WATCHMEN movie. I doubt anyone would be opposed to such an occurrence (not particularly Stanley Kubrick and his family). And this is true for BEFORE WATCHMEN. People who love Brian Azzarello’s work (as I do) will be excited for RORSCHACH. But here’s the problem; people who hate his work will have no reason to second guess their disposition towards him and this project. It’s just preaching to the choir. It’s fair, but very weak. For the record; I adore BABYLON 5, as I do Cooke’s adaptations of PARKER and his various comic works. I do not disagree that the people making these comics are of surpassing quality.

• Dave Gibbons isn’t involved but no one seems to care — This hasn’t been brought up by anyone, but I think this is relevant. Why is it that no one is upset that Lee Bermejo and Amanda Conner are drawing characters Dave Gibbons designed? I would suggest two reasons: First, far from Dave Gibbons being an easily replaceable artist, the difference in quality between Gibbons and the artists of this project is very small because Gibbons like Conner, Hughes, Bermejo et al, are amazing artists, whereas the writers one could argue the gap is vast or very hard to gauge. Secondly, I think more profoundly, people aren’t upset because in the medium of comics, artistry is an interpretive skill, not an originating one. This is not meant to create a hierarchy of disciplines, simply expressing the natures of them. A comic artist does not originate the work, he interprets it from the writer. This is an incredibly important talent, one that I feel many writers do not appreciate by treating artists as puppets who need to be told how to lay out panels, but it is of a nature different to the writers’ which must originate the work. You need both, and it is exceedingly rare to find both in a single person. Darwyn Cooke and Adam Hughes possess both traits (the bastards). People are simply usually more tolerant of changing interpretive artists (such as actors and directors) than they are of changing originating artists. (It’s worth noting that in fine art, the illustrator or sculptor would indeed be the originating, and sole, artist. But comics that tell stories are originated by the writer.) But if I were DC I would’ve brought this point up to help alleviate concerns about the quality. We are fine with replacing Dave Gibbons, but who would rightly say Gibbons is replaceable by anyone?

Concern #3: WATCHMEN is a fully exhausted work
By “fully exhausted” I mean, it is complete. There is nothing left in these characters or their world from within the original work that could generate prequels or sequels. It is irreducibly complex; remove one piece and it fails to work. Add one piece, and it dilutes. I seriously have to wonder who looked at WATCHMEN and thought, “Yeah. There’s a lot of unexplored backstory here.”

• There ARE things left open — To convince the audience that BEFORE WATCHMEN actually has validity to exist within the framework of WATCHMEN, DC would have to say what holes there are in the original that could be filled. An obvious one is the Minutemen and a story focusing on that group as they were marginal characters. They’re doing that. Another possibility could be a tale about Nite Owl and Rorschach’s friendship and it’s eventual dissolution. They’re not doing that. Straczynski has hinted that for his Dr Manhattan series he’ll be expressing a secret motivation behind Dr Manhattan’s accident. I find this terribly dubious for two reasons; Manhattan would have no foreknowledge of his transformation at the time of the accident, and explaining motivation is a terrible mistake writers make. Shakespeare never explained motivation. He made it clear what people want, but never why they wanted it. On the other hand, I have two considerations that make the premise appealing; the first is that Dr Manhattan is extremely self-aware of the world but completely oblivious to his own nature, desires, and feelings. The idea that he had secret motivations he wouldn’t reveal to himself in WATCHMEN when looking back over his life is indeed in-character. Secondly, rather than expressing why he wants what he wants, the series could reveal an unconscious desire of something he truly wanted but never realised. This is actually what happens in WATCHMEN; Dr Manhattan consciously says he wants to do what’s right and expected of him, then he wants to be alone, but beneath it all, something he never realises until the end but we’re acutely aware of (as is Ozymandias), Dr Manhattan desperately wants to find a love of life. So while it’s conceivable there is something that could be buried beneath that, I struggle to think what it could be. But that’s okay, I can wait. And all of this is true for the Ozymandias series by Len Wein as that too, seems concerned with Ozymandias’ motivations for his actions in WATCHMEN, but I can’t help but think they were already explained rather fully. As for the others? I don’t know anything. And that is maddening. At least with Straczynski’s premise I can honestly consider the proposal with an open mind and imagine problems and possibilities. The rest, I just have to ask, “What does WATCHMEN not say about Silk Spectre?”

• It’s been 25 years and there’s something new to say about them — I wouldn’t mind having some inkling about what that could be as it seems to not be intrinsic in the property. Oliver Stone recently made a sequel to his wonderful film WALL STREET. While one could argue its success, particularly in comparison to the original, one thing one cannot argue with WALL STREET 2 is that there is a genuine, intrinsic reason to do a story involving Gordon Gekko, an icon of 1980s capitalism gone awry, at the beginning of the 21st century with the current global recession. But what is it about 2012 that gives WATCHMEN a new lease on life? Simply suggesting that there is one in spite of it not being apparent just sounds like Ozymandias will be inventing an iPhone in the series, or something equally trivial (which I’m sure will not be the case). This is also another argument that actually reinforces the concerns one would have as it makes it apparent that not only is WATCHMEN such an incredible product of the 80s, but that BEFORE WATCHMEN is actually set further in the past (rather than bringing it physically up to date) and that the series simply has not aged in 25 years. It’s still fresh, original, and relevant. All the writers have suggested that they have strong ideas that will make sense when we see them, but I genuinely want my concerns alleviated by being given something concrete that does so. I want to look forward to BEFORE WATCHMEN, not gaze upon it as one would an impending train crash.

Those are my concerns. I hope that all makes sense. Obviously, I cannot know if BEFORE WATCHMEN will actually be good. It may turn out to be. All I know is that I am not only concerned it will be, at best, ill-conceived, but that I am really not looking forward to it. Normally, I would be brief and wait. But some of the hypocrisy espoused in the announcements I felt were not only repugnant, but merited comment. And the polarizing nature of the project meant I had to be precise and clear in my opinions.

Or perhaps I’m just jealous that J Michael Straczynski gets to write a comic that will be illustrated by my dear friend Adam Hughes.



Nah.

What really pisses me off is that the DC logo for the series doesn’t have a speck of blood on it.