Comics are Awesome II

[BWprowl]

Before Watchmen: Minutemen #1

We got wind of these Before Watchmen things a while ago, generating a fair bit of discussion about it. I was of the opinion that writing additional stories about Watchmen was a really bad idea, tantamount to making a sequel to Citizen Kane or something. Surely Watchmen was too important to be mucked up with prequels, right?

Then I started thinking about Gunbuster. For those who don’t know (ie: Probably all of you) Gunbuster was one of the earliest OVAs animated by Gainax, the legendary studio who would go on to make stuff like Evangelion, FLCL, and Gurren Lagann. Gunbuster was their first big success, and it’s considered a landmark for the studio and anime in general, doing a lot to build up elements of the mecha genre as we know it, and establishing ideas that would be used in their later series to great effect. It’s also one of my personal favorite anime of all time. Well, twenty years after the fact, Gainax produced a sequel to Gunbuster, called Dai Buster. It had a different creative team from the original (most of the guys who worked on FLCL and would go on to make Gurren Lagann) and sought to follow up on some of the more nebulous elements of the very end of the original Gunbuster while ‘paying homage’ to the series. It basically had all of the elements I decried in the idea of additional Watchmen content. And you know what? Dai Buster was incredible. It really *was* a loving tribute to the classic, influential series, it stood on its own as a story while adding to what came before, to the point that the original Gunbuster retroactively becomes even *better* by association with the elements from Dai Buster! The two actually complement each other wonderfully.

So if there’s that epic example of a follow-up to a beloved, important story being produced by the same company twenty years later turning out to be a rousing success, then maybe Before Watchmen deserved a chance after all, right? Besides, the things were obviously already happening, and me kicking and screaming about it on our humble message board wasn’t going to convince DC to not do it. And hey, if Frank Miller himself could write an awful sequel to his own important, industry-defining masterwork, and that awful sequel could still be ignored and the original still regarded with the same respect and ongoing praise it deserved, then maybe DC paying some top talent to write some official Watchmen fanfic really wasn’t ‘the end of the world’.

So with me explaining myself out of the way, let’s talk about Minutemen:

From the beginning, I admitted that this was the book with the lowest chance of sucking. Darwyn Cooke is an extremely talented writer/artist double threat, well known for his respect of older comic stories, and his general ‘getting it’. With that in mind, it almost feels like Cooke’s obvious reverence for the source material led to him playing it a bit too safe with Minutemen! The book opens with Hollis Mason beginning to recount his time as Nite-Owl as per the writing of his memoirs, with the opening pages even recreating the cinematic, objects-in-panels-resembling-each-other schtick the original comic was so fond of. There’s also some lines about being happy with something, having the rug pulled out from under you, and if you don’t like it then having to just find the things that do make you happy and sticking with them, which I swear must at least partially be a dig at the readers (ie: me) taking issue with ‘new Watchmen’. From there, we get a series of flashbacks showing the various debuts of the Minutemen, with the implication to show how they came together as the team we know they became. This is where the book ends up playing it ‘too safe’ the way I mentioned: there is very little in these pages that we didn’t already know from info given in Watchmen. The book does play up some elements more, such as Hooded Justice’s brutality, and the Comedian’s thuggishness. Speaking of the Comedian, he only gets a couple pages, but hilariously enough, one of them is him ‘explaining’ his demeanor as stemming from his ‘traumatic childhood’, which you might recall is EXACTLY what I said I feared they would do with him. But the way Eddie delivers the line, like he knows it’s exactly what we expected, followed by him laughing at it like it’s such a cliché joke, then smashing things up with his bat in defiance of his own explanations, actually makes it work. That little scene made me think Cooke may be even more aware of this concept’s pratfalls than I expected him to be. Aside from little touches like that (Silhouette get a decent bit about her as well, really strengthened by Hollis’s narration), this issue mostly plays out like just an illustrated version of the memoirs we got to read back in Watchmen. It’s kinda cool, I guess, and I admit that Cooke definitely has the ‘flavor’ of Watchmen down pat (and his art’s top-notch as always, not to mention perfect for a story like this), but until we get further in the story, what we’ve got doesn’t seem too substantial or ‘worth it’ as a prequel to Watchmen. Like I said, it may be that Cooke simply likes and respects Watchmen so much that he can’t bring himself to get too crazy with it. It’s a double-edged sword. While Minutemen certainly won’t be ‘ruining’ Watchmen any time soon, it hasn’t really added anything to it at this point either. It’s cool, and a fun way to revisit Watchmen for the time being, but it needs to do ‘something’ if they want to convince me this little stunt was worth the hype and heartache.

Gotta give props to DC for the well-conceived tagline, at least. I suppose ‘Before Watchmen: Calm The Fuck Down, Fanboys’ doesn’t have quite the same subtlety to it.

[Onslaught Six]

Before Watchmen: Minutemen #1

Fuck, it is June, innit? Damn it.

Speaking of the Comedian, he only gets a couple pages, but hilariously enough, one of them is him ‘explaining’ his demeanor as stemming from his ‘traumatic childhood’, which you might recall is EXACTLY what I said I feared they would do with him. But the way Eddie delivers the line, like he knows it’s exactly what we expected, followed by him laughing at it like it’s such a cliché joke, then smashing things up with his bat in defiance of his own explanations, actually makes it work.

Comedian may well be making it up. It seems like the kind of thing he might do. Look for a quick out and write it off as a joke. "Hey, stop being a jerk." "Hey, it's not my fault! I had an abusive childhood! Clearly I am suffering, here!" It's like that scene in Batman Begins where Falcone is talking to Crane, and he goes, "Oh, Doc, I'm suffering, I'm in pain," very unconvincingly. It makes sense to me, anyway, and it actually the best thing they could do with him.

this issue mostly plays out like just an illustrated version of the memoirs we got to read back in Watchmen. It’s kinda cool, I guess, and I admit that Cooke definitely has the ‘flavor’ of Watchmen down pat (and his art’s top-notch as always, not to mention perfect for a story like this), but until we get further in the story, what we’ve got doesn’t seem too substantial or ‘worth it’ as a prequel to Watchmen. Like I said, it may be that Cooke simply likes and respects Watchmen so much that he can’t bring himself to get too crazy with it. It’s a double-edged sword. While Minutemen certainly won’t be ‘ruining’ Watchmen any time soon, it hasn’t really added anything to it at this point either. It’s cool, and a fun way to revisit Watchmen for the time being, but it needs to do ‘something’ if they want to convince me this little stunt was worth the hype and heartache.

It's the first issue, though. I think it's important to establish the team as a unit. Also, Cooke may be playing to people who saw the movie but didn't read the comic. (They exist, sadly enough.) The movie goes into less detail about the Minutemen than the comic does (understandably so, given time restraints) so to establish the team precisely--who's in it, how'd they get there, etc.--is important. Likewise, I'm sure the Doc Manhattan series will probably go to lengths to re-establish his origin in the first issue, despite us having seen it already. Rorschach's is the only one I can think of where they might skip that whole schtick.

[BWprowl]

Comedian may well be making it up. It seems like the kind of thing he might do. Look for a quick out and write it off as a joke. "Hey, stop being a jerk." "Hey, it's not my fault! I had an abusive childhood! Clearly I am suffering, here!" It's like that scene in Batman Begins where Falcone is talking to Crane, and he goes, "Oh, Doc, I'm suffering, I'm in pain," very unconvincingly. It makes sense to me, anyway, and it actually the best thing they could do with him.

Yeah, I figured that sort of thing too, and like I said, actually appreciated it. Cooke definitely ‘gets’ the Comedian (in my opinion a really easy character to misinterpret and screw up) in that respect, even with this being the younger iteration of Eddie, before his unique worldview crashed in on itself. It’ll be interesting to see if Azarello, who’s writing the individual Comedian series, is as up to the task as Cooke is.

It's the first issue, though. I think it's important to establish the team as a unit. Also, Cooke may be playing to people who saw the movie but didn't read the comic. (They exist, sadly enough.) The movie goes into less detail about the Minutemen than the comic does (understandably so, given time restraints) so to establish the team precisely--who's in it, how'd they get there, etc.--is important. Likewise, I'm sure the Doc Manhattan series will probably go to lengths to re-establish his origin in the first issue, despite us having seen it already. Rorschach's is the only one I can think of where they might skip that whole schtick.

Fair enough, I just found it odd that a series like this decided to tiptoe so carefully into its content. Maybe I was just expecting ‘too much’? I think one issue I’m already having with this series is that I’m not really sure what I want from it other than ‘don’t fuck up Watchmen’. Maybe once more of the ideas the various authors are going for have become more prevalent I’ll be able to settle in/settle down.

Dom
-just cannot get excited about "Before Watchmen"....

That’s fair, you didn’t like the original, right? I wouldn’t expect you to care too much about a new prequel, in that case. It’s kinda like how everyone’s pants are exploding over Prometheus, while I really don’t care since I never saw any of the Alien movies, nor do I really care to.

I mainly caved and picked this one up due to my feelings evolving as detailed above, leading to a mixture of cautious optimism and morbid curiosity (well, that may apply more to the JMS-penned series). Plus, there was NOTHING else on the rack that I wanted this week, and I’m like Six in that I feel bad if I wander into a comic shop on Wednesday and end up not buying anything.

Oh yeah, by the way, on the last page of Minutemen, with the editors of the series talking about how cool their jobs are? There’s also the little ‘up next’ lineup at the bottom showing the next Before Watchmen books coming out, and right next to the covers are the DATES the books come out! Actual release dates for upcoming comic books, in the back of the preceding comic book! Revolutionary! Disregard my earlier, unsure comments, this is now the book of the year for me.

[Onslaught Six]

Oh yeah, by the way, on the last page of Minutemen, with the editors of the series talking about how cool their jobs are? There’s also the little ‘up next’ lineup at the bottom showing the next Before Watchmen books coming out, and right next to the covers are the DATES the books come out! Actual release dates for upcoming comic books, in the back of the preceding comic book! Revolutionary! Disregard my earlier, unsure comments, this is now the book of the year for me.

Even IDW can't quite get on the ball with this. (The best I get from them is usually "JULY. SOMETIME IN JULY. MIGHT BE THE SECOND WEEK. MIGHT BE THE LAST. DUNNO, SERIOUSLY.")

I think one issue I’m already having with this series is that I’m not really sure what I want from it other than ‘don’t fuck up Watchmen’. Maybe once more of the ideas the various authors are going for have become more prevalent I’ll be able to settle in/settle down.

I know what I want from Minutemen--Silver Age Watchmen. Which is a terrible descriptor, but you get what I mean.

[Shockwave]

Because DC is basically trying to stir up controversy just for the sake of it and I always regard that as a dick move. It's not like they are actually taking a stand because of something they believe in, they're just exploiting a hot button issue for the sake of profit. Which is a dick move. As for why it matters: It doesn't.

Read this interview with the writer. He explains why he decided to change Alan Scott's orientation. He doesn't talk about exploiting hot button issues. For his part, it was just a creative decision he wanted to go with given the opportunity of a rebooted universe. There's a bit more to it, but it's all in the article. And I really don't think DC was looking to exploit a hot button issue either. Publicity, certainly, but I think a lot of people have been misinterpreting DC's intent as something more when really this isn't anything new to comic books.

Yes it does. Without recognizability, it's not iconic. Recognizable = iconic.

So you're essentially trying to say the word iconic means recognizable then? It really doesn't. Look up the definition of iconic in the dictionary (not wikipedia!). From all the dictionary definitions I find, I don't see the word "recognizable" anywhere. As I have said, I do agree that something iconic is generally something recognizable, but it isn't so strict as you seem to suggest it is. For example, Solid Snake I've seen listed as an iconic video game character. But until he appeared in SSB:Brawl, I had no idea who he was or what all the hype was about when it was announced he would be in SSB:Brawl. But I'm really not that big of a video game fan and I've never played a Metal Gear game. I doubt he's well known to the general public as, say, Mario or Sonic are. But to the bigger video game fan base, obviously there is an iconic quality to Solid Snake for them to call him iconic. I'm not going to tell you he isn't an iconic video game character just because I and I'm sure others don't know the character.

That's symbolic, not iconic which is something totally different. Something can be symbolic of something without being recognizable, which as I've established above is a requirement of something being iconic (my definition is pulled from the wikipedia entry for "iconic", I did not make up that standard myself).

We need a head banging smiley... First of all Wiki is not a reliable source to use as standards. Even if it were I'd point out the same page, I assume, you found mentions "icon is also used, particularly in modern culture, in the general sense of symbol". Which is true, symbol is actually a synonym for icon, so they aren't totally different at all. And yes I realize that article also talks about something being "readily recognizable", but keep in mind it's actually talking about much, much larger concepts than we are. And again, just because Alan Scott isn't the most recognizable character does not mean he cannot be an iconic character. There is still qualities that gives him that that you aren't seeing because the only word you're focused on is recognizable.

Again, that's symbolic, not iconic. He certainly does represent something but does not have the recognizability, even compared to other characters that share that same representation.

As I pointed out above, symbolic and iconic are pretty closely related. And again, he doesn't have to be the most recognizable character to be iconic in some way. Green Lantern is an iconic name. If nothing else. Alan Scott was the first Green Lantern. And he's still had some prominent roles in the DC universe after all these years.

Again, that's legacy, not iconic. I can see the confusion here as most characters that are legacy also tend to be iconic, but the two are not mutually exclusive. An iconic character does not have to be a legacy and a character that's a legacy isn't necessarily iconic. Time = legacy. Recognizable = iconic. Time =/= recognizable therefore legacy =/= iconic.

A legacy is actually something that is passed from one generation to another. Like Wally replacing Barry as the Flash. Wally is therefor a legacy character. Alan Scott stayed active though while the other Green Lanterns are a separate entity. And as a character that still shows up in the stories means more fans would be seeing him, making him somewhat more recognizable at least.

And you realize that with this you've just proved my point right? If I picked up a comic with Alan Scott in it and didn't even realize it then how is he iconic? Nobody would be able to pick up a comic with Superman in it and not realize it because he's so iconic and recognizable. Now, I have picked up comics where I didn't realize Superman was in it until I saw him, but once I did, I knew who it was. The same could not be said for Alan Scott and that makes the distinction. Alan Scott is not iconic. And DC telling me he is does not make that reality.

I think you know that isn't how I meant it. You personally may not have known who Alan Scott is but he's still there in the comics for fans to see him and learn who he is. I dunno if you've read this or not but just to use as an example, when you've got a book like Infinite Crisis, EVERYONE is in it. Alan Scott is there and was a part of the efforts in space. He was pretty important in the follow up stores as I recall as well. You keep using characters at different extremes to compare him to, like Superman or nameless thugs. That really isn't a fair method of comparison. How about Robin as an example instead? He's very recognizable and iconic as Batman's kid sidekick right? But how many people outside of comics do you think would know there has actually been 4 Robin's now? (Well there's been more than that but for simplicity sake, let's just go with the 4...) Does that make Damian Wayne automatically iconic just because he's the current Robin? Do you think people who read comics but not necessarily Batman comics would know who he is? Does how iconic Robin is only apply to Dick Grayson? Does that make Nightwing iconic just because he is Dick's current identity? Or does being iconic go beyond how recognizable that specific character is making all of the Robins iconic in some way? Are you starting to see my point yet? As I keep saying, Alan Scott was the first Green Lantern. With out him there probably would be no Green Lantern as we know it. How does that make him not an iconic character in at least some way?

You're absolutely right about this, it probably would have been reported anyway, but it wouldn't have had the same effect and DC would have come across differently.

Well at least there is one thing we seem to agree on here.

For the record I'm not mad about any of this, just offering my perspective.

Sparky, I know the writer didn't do this, that was never in dispute. But someone higher at DC (I think you said earlier that it was someone named Didio) is publicizing this and using controversy for profit. That's what I have issue with. Not the writer or even the book itself.

As for iconic, like I said, we have different standards. This is not new. We've actually been round and round about this before when you tried to sell us on the idea that the Star Wars expanded Universe was as recognizable as the original trilogy. I think I just have a higher standard of iconic and don't throw the term around as freely as you do. To me, something reaches "iconic" once it reaches a certain level of recognizability. And that level is when it extends outside of the fandom that spawned it. Spock is iconic, Superman is iconic, Darth Vader is iconic. Lt. Gary Mitchell is not iconic, Darth Talon is not iconic and neither is Alan Scott.

[Onslaught Six]

You know, I'm wondering if DC might be pulling the legacy card on us. It's not necessarily that Alan Scott is iconic in his own right, but as a Green Lantern, he is. And his new, redesigned costume more resembles the Corps uniform (despite Alan Scott not being connected to them, even in the new continuity) so that's probably what they're going for. It's not, "Alan Scott is gay," it's "Earth-2 Green Lantern is gay!"

And yeah, Didio is the one pushing it as a huge deal. He's "Co-producer" of DC right now along with Jim Lee, so he's basically the 60s Stan Lee. (I dunno if this makes him an equivalent of Marvel's old "Editor In Chief" or what.) The guy writing it (name is slipping my mind, I'm sick today) was sad that Obsidian was gone and figured that by making Alan Scott gay, he could sort-of reference back to that. The same way Jason Todd started as basically a carbon copy of Dick Grayson.

[andersonh1]

I'm sure the Green Lantern association has to play into the whole thing, at least for DC, given that Green Lantern has been a fairly successful, high profile DC franchise for the last few years.

[BWprowl]

I'm sure the Green Lantern association has to play into the whole thing, at least for DC, given that Green Lantern has been a fairly successful, high profile DC franchise for the last few years.

Yeah, the stellar performance of that blockbuster movie really boosted the public's opinion of Green Lantern.

[Sparky Prime]

Shockwave is pretty well on track in terms of defining "iconic". "Iconic" means "recognizable to people other than obsessive fans".

Wrong. Not everyone is going to be familiar with every aspect of any given hobby but that doesn't mean those characters aren't still iconic in their own right. Like I pointed out with the example of Solid Snake being an iconic video game character. Or I'm sure there are plenty people outside the fans who don't know who Soundwave is for another example. But that doesn't make him any less of an iconic Transformers character. What you and Shockwave seem to only be focusing on is what makes iconic characters stand out above the rest, making them the iconic characters of the franchise, like Superman is, rather than what makes an iconic character, like Green Lantern.

Sparky, I know the writer didn't do this, that was never in dispute. But someone higher at DC (I think you said earlier that it was someone named Didio) is publicizing this and using controversy for profit. That's what I have issue with. Not the writer or even the book itself.

I'm just pointing out the writer was the one who came up with the idea and wanted to execute it. It's not like it was a marketing thing DC came up with just to stir up controversy and interest for the comic. The way DiDio announced it might make seem that way and certainly he was looking for the publicity, but I don't think he really intended for some of the reaction they've gotten either.

As for iconic, like I said, we have different standards. This is not new. We've actually been round and round about this before when you tried to sell us on the idea that the Star Wars expanded Universe was as recognizable as the original trilogy. I think I just have a higher standard of iconic and don't throw the term around as freely as you do. To me, something reaches "iconic" once it reaches a certain level of recognizability. And that level is when it extends outside of the fandom that spawned it. Spock is iconic, Superman is iconic, Darth Vader is iconic. Lt. Gary Mitchell is not iconic, Darth Talon is not iconic and neither is Alan Scott.

See now, you never understood my point about the Star Wars expanded universe, and you're not seeing what I'm saying about Alan Scott being iconic here. I don't think it has anything to do with standards, you're just not seeing what it is I'm actually saying. I never meant the expanded universe was as recognizable as the original trilogy, just that people would know there are books, comic or the cartoons beyond the movies. And look at the names you listed as iconic. You used alter egos rather than their names. Superman rather than Clark Kent. Darth Vader rather than Anakin Skywalker. But then you said Alan Scott isn't iconic. Not Green Lantern. You're not even looking at the whole picture of the character.

It's not necessarily that Alan Scott is iconic in his own right, but as a Green Lantern, he is.

Thank you! This is what I have been saying, Alan Scott alone isn't what makes him iconic, but Alan Scott the original Green Lantern does.

[andersonh1]

I'm sure the Green Lantern association has to play into the whole thing, at least for DC, given that Green Lantern has been a fairly successful, high profile DC franchise for the last few years.

Yeah, the stellar performance of that blockbuster movie really boosted the public's opinion of Green Lantern.

Agreed, but considering that Green Lantern was one of two franchises that was selling well enough to avoid major overhauls, the Green Lantern brand has to be considered one of DC's higher profile names for the comic-buying audience. And even a poor movie raised the character's profile with the general public.

Look at it this way: if DC said "Liberty Belle is now gay" people would say "who?" At least with Green Lantern, there's an association, good or bad. DC's clearly hoping it's good.