Before Watchmen by DC Direct

Collector Freaks Forum

Help Support Collector Freaks Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Maybe I'm out of line here, but who cares? Before Watchmen or no Before Watchmen, Watchmen will still be the same great book. Don't like it, don't read it. Of course DC was going to try to cash in on one of their best-selling books in their 75 years or so of doing this; DC has been on the warpath to becoming more corporate, and they want to make money; from the new logo to the New 52 to Before Watchmen and DC Entertainment, that's all it's been about.

It's history: Corporate wants money, decides to do whatever it takes to make it, little guy decides to stand up. It's basic knowledge really, if you stand in the way of progress, for better or worse, you'll get run over. DC doesn't care about the critics, they care about the 20-something college kids who pick up Watchmen in the book store so that they can be self-proclaimed "comic-geeks" and eat up whatever other Watchmen stuff is on the market, just like the rest of the fads.

I'm sorry, but I refuse to have such a fatalistic view.

DC is very much out of line and some of us do feel we have to stand up and take a stand, regardless of it having no real effect. That's the point. The principle of the matter is important.

The truth is, I find the idea of these WATCHMEN prequels intriguing as a fan, but the moment I began to think about why and how they exist I immediately turned to feeling angst. I can't buy these or support them in any way, shape or form. I don't care how good or bad they are. I'd feel dirty and complicit. It doesn't matter that these will surely be financially successful regardless. I won't be a mindless enabler of these companies and their deceitful and immoral practices anymore.
 
or a simpler answer....
its pretty much the same thing.

Saying, 'but Moore is an indiviudal where as DC is a corporation!!!' is just silly.

Uh, how is it at all "silly"? There is a fundamental difference and that is the point. Moore is an indivual writer and DC is a corporation that is part of a mega media conglomerate. Fact. And as such, their reasons and motivations for putting stories out there are fundamentally different.

And, yes, it does also make a difference that DC's retread of these characters will affect their canon.

and its hardly a legal loop hole that gives DC direct ownership. Their contract stated that as long as the book stayed in print they would hold ownership....not like they've been keeping it in print at a loss just to maintain ownership. It has consistently been in print and on the graphic novel best seller list for 20+ years.

"Hey guys, shouldn't we let it just go out of print anyway so Alan Moore can own it?"
Instead of rehash what others have already documented and eloquently explained, I'll just refer you to a couple of many recent pieces:

https://robot6.comicbookresources.c...o-far-on-before-watchmen-and-creators-rights/

https://badassdigest.com/2012/02/02...hmen-continues-80-years-of-creator-exploitat/

Moore doesn't mind putting classic characters into pornography and incest relationships, so I don't think we need to worry too much about DC's moral or legal high ground regarding characters they own that were originally based on other characters they own.

Sorry, but I've heard that meatheaded attempt at justification dozens of times over the past couple of weeks, and it still holds no water to me.

I'm honestly baffled that anyone without a financial stake in this could take DC's side here. I can only surmise its because some people need to validate their own reasons for wanting these comics to happen without feeling dirty or wrong about it.
 
Last edited:
Uh, how is it at all "silly"? There is a fundamental difference and that is the point. Moore is an indivual writer and DC is a corporation that is part of a mega media conglomerate. Fact. And as such, their reasons and motivations for putting stories out there are fundamentally different.

And, yes, it does also make a difference that DC's retread of these characters will affect their canon.

Um because it is silly. The idea that it would be okay if it wasn't a corporation doing it is just bizarre.

Instead of rehash what others have already documented and eloquently explained, I'll just refer you to one of many recent pieces:

https://badassdigest.com/2012/02/02/t...tor-exploitat/

Yup, so the article and I agree. Thanks for that.
Just because Watchmen was the first comic to prove a graphic novel could stay in print that long does not make it a sneaky loophole.

Sorry, but I've heard that meatheaded attempt at justification dozens of times over the past couple of weeks, and it makes no sense.

I'm honestly baffled that anyone without a financial stake in this could take DC's side here. I can only surmise its because some people need to validate their own reasons for wanting these comics to happen without feeling dirty or wrong about it.

Oh please. Its a 'meatheaded attempt at justifcation' because someone disagrees with you. The reason you're reading it so many times is it is a very valid point. You surmise wrong and sound asinine in stating its because others are trying to avoid feeling dirty. What sort of garbage is that?

You just sound like an angry fanboy, raging that someone is daring to print a prequel to your bible. See I can make giant leaps and dramatic proclamations as well! Awesome!

I wouldn't buy these and I think its unnecessary. But then again, I think more Superman stories after 70+ years are also redundant. But its what comic companies do, so whatever.

I own the original Watchmen issues from 86-87. This prequel doesn't devalue them. The prequel will be forgotten about in 5 years time just like that add on to Kingdom Come, 'The Kingdom' has now been completely forgotten about.

I'm honestly baffled that anyone thinks these characters are so important they should be afforded some sort of historical protection from the apparently evil corporations that own them.
 
Simple. There is a BIG difference between a writer taking characters from public domain by long-dead authors and putting them into an all-new work that is completely separate from the originals, and what is happening with WATCHMEN...

Yeah, I don't think Moore is as "pure as the driven snow" as you. Steve Ditko, who isn't dead by the way, could have sued Moore for ripping off not The Question, but MR. A, and would have scored a settlement, if not an outright court win. It's only because Ditko is even loonier than Moore that this did not occur.

WATCHMEN is a brilliant graphic novel, and no amout of prequels, sequels, or spin-offs will detract from that. This whole fanboy footstamping comes right out of the "George Lucas raped my childhood" playbook. If you don't buy these new works and read them, they cannot sully the graphic novel which you hold in high esteem.

I did not know that some of the LOST GIRLS creator's estates tried to block publication. Thank God Alan Moore doen't dress like Tom Wolfe
 
Maybe I'm out of line here, but who cares? Before Watchmen or no Before Watchmen, Watchmen will still be the same great book. Don't like it, don't read it.

Thats fine, for the people in the know NOW. But say in 10-15 years from now someone is getting into comics and they read these new ones first and they stink, those people will never follow up and get to the good stuff. It only hurts the legacy of things.

Ive never bashed the Star Wars PT, but for the kids who seen those first and in future will always start with Episode I, they will never experiance the surprise of Vader telling Luke hes his father, Jabba, Yodas first appearance in ESB. If they cant stomach the PT, they will never make it to the OT.

Prequels really really do hurt things. If a sequel is bad, its one thing, you started with the good and ended with the bad. Even future generations can get past bad sequels because they already seen the good stuff. But future generations will always read and watch prequels first, and that hurts the originals big time, because there is a good chance they will never be watched or read.
 
So the issue of Creators' Rights holds no value to some of you and it's fine for DC and Marvel to continue their history of ____ing over the individual creators as long as they also continue to supply the world with Batman and Spider-Man comics. Got it.

Yay comics! :rolleyes:

Fine. We agree to disagree, then. Fundamentally and completely.

But I will leave my position documented and suppored with the following 2 articles, both of which I agree with 100%. And so should anyone else who gives a crap about individual artists and creators:

I'm still kind of gnashing my teeth over the "Before Watchmen" news, mainly because of how dismissive people are of Alan Moore's rights as a creator.

Historically, the comics community has been on the side of the creator in most creator vs. corporation battles. Much has been written and said about Jack Kirby's battles with Marvel Comics, for instance, and most of us tend to agree that Kirby was not treated as he should have been, when the big picture is considered.

But something else most of us can agree on when discussing Kirby vs. Marvel, is that Jack knew he was creating characters that would be owned by Marvel Comics. Did he want more credit and compensation for his part in those characters' creation than he ultimately received? Yes. Did he deserve it? A thousand times, yes: characters Fantastic Four, Thor, the Hulk, Iron Man, the X-Men, S.H.I.E.L.D., the Silver Surfer, Captain America, and the Avengers would not exist without Jack Kirby. But did he know_he was creating characters that Marvel would ultimately own? Again, the answer is yes.

Alan Moore and Dave Gibbons, meanwhile, created Watchmen under the impression that the rights would be returned them eventually. Within a year after it was concluded, in fact. That's not my opinion. That's a fact. It's public knowledge. Due to the nature of the deal that had been agreed upon by Moore, Gibbons and DC Comics, it was widely discussed. It was a genuine victory for creators' rights.

But then the book was kept in print forever, and the rights to Watchmen never reverted back to Moore and Gibbons.

And people wonder why Alan Moore felt betrayed.

It was a dirty deal, and the fact that there are people who want to rationalize it by saying, "Well, Alan Moore wrote League of Extraordinary Gentlemen and Lost Girls, and those books used other writers's characters, so how is this any different?" just shows that truth is a sadly devalued currency. It's different because Alan Moore and Dave Gibbons negotiated, in good faith, a deal that would have allowed them to retain the rights to Watchmen.

And yes, the characters in Watchmen were inspired by characters like Peacemaker, Thunderbolt and The Question. We know that, because Alan Moore and Dave Gibbons told us as much. Had they kept that inspiration quiet – would anyone anywhere have mistaken_Watchmen for something published by Charlton Comics? Dr. Manhattan is no more the same character as Captain Atom as Captain Marvel is Superman or Blue Beetle is Spider-Man.


All in all, it's a strange double standard, arbitrarily applied to an amazing writer who has done more than almost anyone else to draw serious attention to this medium. And it's one that anyone who supports creator's rights should find fairly troubling, if not outright maddening.

https://it-sparkles.blogspot.com/2012/02/no-fun.htm


“Alan Moore has earned his frustration, his suspicions and his occasional flashes of anger. He should be listened to and learned from, not dismissed and certainly never mocked.” — Tom Spurgeon

When the comic book industry first coalesced in the late 1930s, it adopted a business model that, to put it lightly, did not put an emphasis on ethical behavior. These were publishing companies run by greedy, exploitive people who had_questionable connections to gangsters or had been indicted for mail fraud. They cared little about the quality of their product, the well-being of their workers–sorry, freelancers–or seeing that anyone who contributed to their success was fairly and duly compensated.

Here we are, roughly 80 years later, and everything has changed. Whoops, I’m sorry. I mean nothing has changed. It’s still an ugly, cutthroat industry where publishers are all too happy to grab as many rights as they can to artists’ hard-won work whenever said artists are willing to take those sucker bets. It’s an industry dominated by cynical publishing ventures and easy cash grabs rather than an interest in creating long range, sustainable business models. Perhaps the worst thing about our current era is that those who have legitimate reason to complain about their mistreatment are the ones most frequently shouted down by a certain cross-section of their fans, a mercenary bunch who seem to care more for ensuring that they never, ever lose the chance to get more of the same in a timely fashion than if the people producing that same are treated with a certain amount of decency and respect.

Of course, it wasn’t supposed to be that way. The comics boom of the 1980s that gave rise to the indie, b&w movement also gave rise to a vigorous interest in creators rights. People like Alan Moore, Dave Sim, Steve Bissette, Scott McCloud, Neal Adams and Frank Miller saw what had happened to industry veterans like Jack Kirby and_Steve Gerber, and were justifiably outraged. They spoke out against these perceived injustices and continually pushed for better compensation and to have a greater stake in the comics they produced, whether on their own or with a major publisher. The creator-owned works we see from companies like Dark Horse and Vertigo, the royalties that current artists and writers receive on work-for-hire projects — that’s all a direct result of these efforts.

Watchmen was supposed to be a part of that movement. As Moore states in a 2005 interview with Heidi MacDonald, the idea was that by creating characters out of whole cloth rather than relying on the Charlton bunch, Moore and Gibbons would be given the rights to Watchmen (and also V for Vendetta, which Moore handed over to DC in order to finish the project) one year after they went out of print, which they expected to happen as soon as the series was completed. To my knowledge, DC has never disputed Moore’s description of events.

Of course, we know how that turned out. Watchmen caught the rising winds of the burgeoning graphic novel movement and ended up never going out of print. Moore and Gibbons found themselves to be victims of their own success as the book continued to rise in popularity and acclaim, and readers found they preferred reading it in collected trade form to hunting down back issues. It was, as Eric Stephenson, notes, a “dirty deal,” and if it was a turn of events DC didn’t necessarily expect, well, it’s not like they’ve done much to create a more equitable situation in the years since.

You see, whether or not Before Watchmen dilutes the charm of the original comic is_irrelevant — creators are just as capable of destroying the goodwill their initial work establishes as easily as corporations are. And the fact that Moore has frequently drawn upon classic literary material in works like Lost Girls and League of Extraordinary Gentlemen is also_irrelevant_(although let me make an aside here to say that there’s a big difference between building a pastiche using familiar characters and motifs to create something new and original, and rehashing familiar material to make a quick and cynical cash grab). The basic issue here is one of fairness, of creators rights and how this industry operates. It’s about how a work that should have been a shining example of how much had changed in the comics world instead became an example of how everything has stayed the same.

Now, I am a full-time reporter for a daily newspaper. Everything I write for that newspaper is work-for-hire, including the comics column I did for them for a few years. I was not compensated, for example, when an interview I did with Alan Moore was reprinted in the book_Alan Moore: Conversations, nor did I expect to receive any compensation, financial or otherwise._On the other hand, I get a weekly salary for my efforts. I get sick days and vacation. I get health care and a 401k plan. I get treated like a valued employee. Moore doesn’t get and never has received any of those things. Yes, his work has been financially successful enough to make some of those compensations moot, but there are very few creators working in this industry_that can make similar claims.

If we care at all about the comics industry, if we care about comics as an art form, if we want it to be taken seriously, if we want to see talented people produce quality material, then we need to start caring about the way those people are treated in this industry. We need to start valuing creators rights over our own greedy need for more third-rate pulp. We need to stop making shameless, defensive rationalizations and questioning people’s motives when the basic motive underlying those outbursts is “me wanty.” We need to stop acting like petulant, entitled children. And we need to speak out when creators whose work we claim to value and enjoy are given short shrift in the name of the_Almighty_dollar.

https://robot6.comicbookresources.c...o-far-on-before-watchmen-and-creators-rights/
 
Last edited:
So the issue of Creators' Rights holds no value you to you and it's fine for DC and Marvel to continue their history of ____ing over the individual creators as long as they also continue to supply the world with Batman and Spider-Man comics. Got it.

We agree to disagree, then.

I will leave my position with the following 2 articles, both of which I agree with 100%. And so should anyone else who gives a crap about individual artists and creators:l

My point was that Watchmen deserves no special protection or distinction from any other comic works or characters.

If your point is now moving to 'ALL characters should be given back to their original creators and corporations should not have the right to continuing stories on any superhero' then we've moved to a very different discussion.

Do I think creators of mega cash cow characters should be able to share in that? Of course. Do I believe they should be granted some control? Sure. Do I believe Moore and Watchmen are sacred? Nope.

Moore had no trouble taking paycheques to write Superman or Batman (or Captain Britian and others) in his younger years from the big corporations. It's only after they crossed him and his work that this all became an issue for him.

The younger generation now has little problem doing the same. To be honest I'm kind of surprised at some of the talent working on this. Young guys who are building their career I'd understand but some of the already rich and mega-succesful guys on this I'm kind of surprised at.

But as I stated, this will end up like The Kingdom and will quickly disappear. We'll see Roarsharch kill a few people. It won't be as controversial as ....say, Dorothy getting sodomized by the wizard, who is actually her father.
 
I see it like this:

Is it wrong that DC is making these comics without Alan Moore's involvement? Yes.

Is it wrong that DC is making these comics with Alan Moore not wanting them made? Yes.

Did DC pretty much do the same thing to make the Watchmen movie? Yes.

Am I excited to read new Watchmen comics?
HELL YES!

Am I really excited by the people involved including Darwyn Cooke, Adam Hughes and Amanda Conner?
HELL YES!

Will anything that DC does from here on out to the Watchmen universe change/taint the greatness of the original Watchmen comics?
No.
 
Whether or not this "Beyond Watchmen" thing taints the original work (though, regardless, it will be thrust upon us as official canon) really is immaterial and irrelevant.
 
I'm on the side of DC here because, whether my preference as a fan comes in or not, it's a good business decision. As I mentioned before, Watchmen is one of their biggest hits, and as long as there are fresh faces coming in, Watchmen will continue to sell, DC will now have an avenue to make even more off of that audience, and, while I respect your dedication to your opinion, Jedi, I've oft seen people crusading just as hard as you are against something, only to see them picking it up from their pulls a couple months later, and I'm afraid that's where I see a lot of the critics being in a few months time. Also, the argument that Moore isn't involved should be non-existent, as it is, for the most part, an impossibility that he would ever agree to have anything to do with it. My stance: Why wait for the impossible to happen when you can take some initiative and get it done yourself?
 
DC doesn't have a leg to stand on. I love that company but the reality was it was widely known that Moore was pissed at them because the deal struck said that he and Gibbons would get control of these characters, plain and simple.

DC when it was a hit, continued publishing it so they could retain the rights with a technicality and have been doing so since.

This has absolutely nothing to do Moore's other works. It has absolutely nothing to do whether you love the characters or not. It has absolutely nothing to do with Jack Kirby, Steve Ditko, Jerry Siegel and Joe Shuster. They were screwed by the companies they worked for due to the lack of appropriate deals in place to give them proper credit and royalities from the characters they assisted in creating.

Moore and Gibbons had those. After Watchmen ended it should have reverted back to the creators as their contract stipulated.

I'll read these because I do actually love the characters but even if they are fantastically done IMHO it's all EU, same as the Star Wars stuff. Even if DC makes millions off of this it doesn't change the facts of the matter in regards to why Alan Moore would be pissed at the company.
 
DC doesn't have a leg to stand on. I love that company but the reality was it was widely known that Moore was pissed at them because the deal struck said that he and Gibbons would get control of these characters, plain and simple.

DC when it was a hit, continued publishing it so they could retain the rights with a technicality and have been doing so since.

This has absolutely nothing to do Moore's other works. It has absolutely nothing to do whether you love the characters or not. It has absolutely nothing to do with Jack Kirby, Steve Ditko, Jerry Siegel and Joe Shuster. They were screwed by the companies they worked for due to the lack of appropriate deals in place to give them proper credit and royalities from the characters they assisted in creating.

Moore and Gibbons had those. After Watchmen ended it should have reverted back to the creators as their contract stipulated.

:lecture:exactly:

And now the news of what Marvel is doing to the creator of Ghost Rider and how Robert Kirkman is screwing over the original artist/co-creator of The Walking Dead (who was also once his childhood best friend) and this quote seems as prescient as ever:

"I love the comic medium. It is one I shall never abandon. But the industry... it's dark satanic mills." - Alan Moore

Seriously, the utter lack of morality, shame or even common decency in this industry is astounding.
 
Back
Top