Went ahead and got Nite Owl and Silk Spectre last night. Really liked Note Owl but the bit about his abusive dad was cliche and unec. I also think they rushed through too much too quickly, such as meeting and teaming up with Rorchach and their hooking up with the Crimebusters. To me THAT couldve easily been the basis of the series alone.
Not sure what to think of Silk Spectre but I didnt love it. Some of it felt gratuitous and the day dreaming sequences didnt work for me. Nothing really connected with me. I dont know if Ill get the rest of this one.
you know, i liked Silk Spectre but it felt completely un-watchmen-like. the day-dreaming stuff felt a little anime to me and fit well with the story about a 16 year old girl coming of age story but again un-watchmen-like. good but not something i would have ordinarily picked up myself had it not been for the yellow and black banner.
I did not like the way Eddie was portrayed, he did not resemble the man in Watchmen. What was the point of his man crush on Jack and Bobby. I much prefer the interaction he had with Jack from the movie then him crushing on him during a game of touch football. To me it makes more sense that the man who tried to rape his teammate would kill the president and not hang out with him.
I am not buying the death of JFK is what changes him or at least the beginning of his change. Which is what the story seems to be implying. He was a vicious psyco before and after the death not because of it.
I saw that relationship totally different from what I think you're saying here. I thought this was more of an entitled group of guys that had a lot of power that could get away with a lot of bad behavior when they felt like it. The Kennedys with the adultery/Chappaquiddick/rape and Eddie with everything that he's done. It's natural for people of similar stature to be drawn to each other, especially if they have complementary skill sets/values and aren't competing with each other.
I don't see them as the group of idealists that you commonly saw presented in the media in the past, and which I think is what you're saying when you suggested that this is what would turn Eddie bad. I don't think that this is a story about what put him on the wrong track. He was already flawed. I'm thinking that this is more a Kennedy assassination conspiracy story, and that the next step in this story is going to be about why J. Edgar Hoover wanted to keep the Comedian away from Dallas.
I actually quite enjoyed this issue. That makes one of us, so far.
I was seeing it as this is a moment where he starts losing faith in the country and gets that-this country is a joke attitude-which we see in watchmen.
I was seeing it as this is a moment where he starts losing faith in the country and gets that-this country is a joke attitude-which we see in watchmen.
That's how I saw it as well. Overall, however, the issue didn't bowl me over - even the JG Jones art seemed a bit sloppy to me - so not sure I'm going to the next one.
I get some of what's been said about Silk Spectre #1, but to me, at least that seemed in keeping with some of the tone of the original series in that it's commenting on a different genre of comics (romance) within the telling of the overall story. For the most part that one worked for me, especially the panel with Laurel looking at the picture of her mom and adoptive father, while Eddie grins in the picture of the minutemen above it. Where they lost me was in The Comedian. So wait, he's Kennedy's buddy? He's not in Dallas when Kennedy gets shot? In Watchmen, it was heavily implied, and later admitted to by Moore, that Eddie, in town guarding Nixon, is that second gunman on the grassy knoll. Heck in the movie, they decided to depart with subtlety on this, and SHOWED Eddie pulling the trigger. It kinda bugged me, and I'm just going to try to let it go.
Then there's Nite Owl. Fine Kubert art, but Dan turns out to have been Mason's sidekick, painting him as a bit of a Tim Drake. I guess this works if you just assume Hollis is lying in his book, where in Watchmen, he was shown to be honest to a fault. So this appears to be an unnecessary retcon,which is something they bent over backwards saying they weren't going to do. I suppose I shouldn't be surprised, being that it comes from JMS. He's probably convinced himself that that's the way it actually happened in the original book and thinks that Moore is an absolute idiot for not having anticipated this and put it in there in the first place. I find that every time he speaks now, I'm left thinking that he comes off as a colossal idiot and I find it's starting to extend to the words he types on the page.
So far, I loved Minutemen, enjoyed Silk Spectre, disliked Comedian and Nite Owl (though the art was solid on both of the latter). Ozymandias sits on the stack, as does the latest Minutemen.
@paul. The comedian can still kill Kennedy. This will just show how amoral he is.
What? No. That shot of the Commedian on the grassy knoll was just part of the montage in the opening of the movie not part of the OGN. And The point of the story in Comedian #1 was that the Feds needed to keep Eddie out of Dallas altogether. This is part of Eddie beIng broken and disillusioned with America. Granted he may have been a dick even back in the Minutemen days but he still had further to plummet.
It was referenced in the original series, and later confirmed by Moore.
Yes, the shot of it in the movie was just something that's typical of Snyder's "Why use a small rock hammer when a sledgehammer will do" approach to storytelling. I can't remember the exact line, but Eddie mentions it in the book.
Just read Comedian 1 & 2... very, very disappointed... the whole JFK has ruined it for me now, yes I know they threw it in the film, but it is referenced a few times subtly in the novel that he did it, including:
In the original Watchmen comic, at a party, Blake is telling a his "opinion" about the assassination of Watergate journalists Woodward and Bernstein, ending in the line "Nah.. I'm clean, guys. Just don't ask where I was when I heard about J.F:K." and everybody around him starts laughing.
This was also confirmed in the rpg that was approved at the time, think there was a secret FBI file (memory fading!) and Moore said he did it. I guess the twist at the end is that he is responsible, but just seems contrived.
i was pretty excited about this whole line initially and i picked up all the number ones (thus far) and all the number twos (thus far) and not im feeling just a little blah abotu the whole thing. maybe it would ready better in trades. i just find my enthusiasm dwindling. unless somebody tells me one particular title is really outstanding i think im done. there is other stuff im enjoying more.
I'm trying them all, and so far going to issue 2 on 3 of 6 I've tried:
Like: Minutemen, Silk Spectre, Ozymandias
Didnt like enough: Nite Owl, Comedian, Rorschach
Minutemen is my favorite, if for no other reason that it has that beautiful Cooke art. But I'm also loving his examination of the interplay between the characters, and his capture of the period.
Silk Spectre has been decent. I'm liking the Amanda Conners art (I don't think I've ever read any of her stuff before), and I'm liking Cooke's treatment of the 60s and hippies.
Ozymandias was a pleasant surprise- not just for the terrific Jae Lee art, but also for the character focus on Adrien Veidt. The first issue laid out a lot of pieces, and I'm interested to see how Wein will bring them together.
Nite Owl struck me as just pedestrian. I should add at this point that I think the whole Before Watchmen thing is a bad idea. Its completely unnecessary and to some extent I feel guilty even buying these books because I thin DC unfairly screwed Moore (and Gibbons) and buying the books over Moore's express wishes is condoning DC's shitty behavior to some extent. Nevertheless, I'm a fan of good comics and DC has admitedly put together some great teams for this project, so in an unRorshachian moral compromise, I'm at least giving these books a chance. But given the moral hit AND the $3.99 price tag) they're on a short leash with me.
So back to Nite Owl, I didn't dislike it- but didnt see anything in it enough to go to issue 2.
Similarly, I wasn't bowled over by Comedian, either. Plus, I thought the book made him much more idealisitc than he should have been at that point in his career. Part of the essential core of his character is his rejection of morality and ethics given his view of the absurdity of existence (in fact, each of the central Watchmen characters offers a different view of morality and society, and ones duties in light of that view). I think Azzarello's suggestion that the Comedian found moral brotherhood in the Kennedy clan does the Kennedy's a disservice or imbues Eddie with an idealism that I think wasn't present in the source material.
I had problems with Rorschach, as well. The book seemed nothing more than an exercise in depicting senseless violence- the very feature that Moore and others have accused 90's writers as misaprehending as his core characteristic. Rather, Rorschach is about total lack of moral compromise in a morally gray world- even in the face of armageddon (to reference one of my favorite lines in the book). Rorschach deals with immorality by adopting an unflinching moral codes that, ironically, can be seen as utterly IMmoral. None of this character complexity is seen in the first issue, imho, so no #2 for me.
I haven't read through the entire thread but i have to say I'm enjoying the books. I haven't read the comedian or silk spectre yet, but I're really enjoyed how the others are opening up the world. So fair I'd have to say my favorite is Minutemen and Dr. Manhattan.
What happens on the penultimate page of Silk Spectre #3 is so heartbreakingly perfect, any lingering doubt I had about whether Before Watchmen was worth doing has been obliterated.
I actually quite liked Eddie's flashback sequence, and was impressed that rather than witnessing Laurie's conception, we see the conversation that leads to their affair.
I've bought every issue of each series so far and there hasn't been a clinker in the bunch so far. I was apprehensive at the beginning, but the results have been pleasantly surprising and satisfying.
Comments
e
L nny
http://www.rpsteeves.com/2012/07/wrapped-up-like-comic-review-before_10.html
Then there's Nite Owl. Fine Kubert art, but Dan turns out to have been Mason's sidekick, painting him as a bit of a Tim Drake. I guess this works if you just assume Hollis is lying in his book, where in Watchmen, he was shown to be honest to a fault. So this appears to be an unnecessary retcon,which is something they bent over backwards saying they weren't going to do. I suppose I shouldn't be surprised, being that it comes from JMS. He's probably convinced himself that that's the way it actually happened in the original book and thinks that Moore is an absolute idiot for not having anticipated this and put it in there in the first place. I find that every time he speaks now, I'm left thinking that he comes off as a colossal idiot and I find it's starting to extend to the words he types on the page.
So far, I loved Minutemen, enjoyed Silk Spectre, disliked Comedian and Nite Owl (though the art was solid on both of the latter). Ozymandias sits on the stack, as does the latest Minutemen.
How's everyone liking the Crimson Corsair story?
Yes, the shot of it in the movie was just something that's typical of Snyder's "Why use a small rock hammer when a sledgehammer will do" approach to storytelling. I can't remember the exact line, but Eddie mentions it in the book.
Unless by amoral, you mean "able to travel back in time" ;)
In the original Watchmen comic, at a party, Blake is telling a his "opinion" about the assassination of Watergate journalists Woodward and Bernstein, ending in the line "Nah.. I'm clean, guys. Just don't ask where I was when I heard about J.F:K." and everybody around him starts laughing.
This was also confirmed in the rpg that was approved at the time, think there was a secret FBI file (memory fading!) and Moore said he did it. I guess the twist at the end is that he is responsible, but just seems contrived.
I was quite pleasantly surprized though by Ozymandius #1. I never really planned on getting that one but dang it was well written and compelling.
Like: Minutemen, Silk Spectre, Ozymandias
Didnt like enough: Nite Owl, Comedian, Rorschach
Minutemen is my favorite, if for no other reason that it has that beautiful Cooke art. But I'm also loving his examination of the interplay between the characters, and his capture of the period.
Silk Spectre has been decent. I'm liking the Amanda Conners art (I don't think I've ever read any of her stuff before), and I'm liking Cooke's treatment of the 60s and hippies.
Ozymandias was a pleasant surprise- not just for the terrific Jae Lee art, but also for the character focus on Adrien Veidt. The first issue laid out a lot of pieces, and I'm interested to see how Wein will bring them together.
Nite Owl struck me as just pedestrian. I should add at this point that I think the whole Before Watchmen thing is a bad idea. Its completely unnecessary and to some extent I feel guilty even buying these books because I thin DC unfairly screwed Moore (and Gibbons) and buying the books over Moore's express wishes is condoning DC's shitty behavior to some extent. Nevertheless, I'm a fan of good comics and DC has admitedly put together some great teams for this project, so in an unRorshachian moral compromise, I'm at least giving these books a chance. But given the moral hit AND the $3.99 price tag) they're on a short leash with me.
So back to Nite Owl, I didn't dislike it- but didnt see anything in it enough to go to issue 2.
Similarly, I wasn't bowled over by Comedian, either. Plus, I thought the book made him much more idealisitc than he should have been at that point in his career. Part of the essential core of his character is his rejection of morality and ethics given his view of the absurdity of existence (in fact, each of the central Watchmen characters offers a different view of morality and society, and ones duties in light of that view). I think Azzarello's suggestion that the Comedian found moral brotherhood in the Kennedy clan does the Kennedy's a disservice or imbues Eddie with an idealism that I think wasn't present in the source material.
I had problems with Rorschach, as well. The book seemed nothing more than an exercise in depicting senseless violence- the very feature that Moore and others have accused 90's writers as misaprehending as his core characteristic. Rather, Rorschach is about total lack of moral compromise in a morally gray world- even in the face of armageddon (to reference one of my favorite lines in the book). Rorschach deals with immorality by adopting an unflinching moral codes that, ironically, can be seen as utterly IMmoral. None of this character complexity is seen in the first issue, imho, so no #2 for me.
Next up for me, Dr. Manhattan in 2 weeks.
e
L nny
http://www.rpsteeves.com/2012/08/wrapped-up-like-comic-review-before.html
http://www.rpsteeves.com/2012/09/wrapped-up-like-comic-review-before.html
http://www.rpsteeves.com/2012/09/wrapped-up-like-comic-review-before_16.html
I thought Ozymandias was pretty good, too.
http://www.rpsteeves.com/2012/10/wrapped-up-like-before-watchmen-review.html
http://www.rpsteeves.com/2012/10/wrapped-up-like-comics-review-recent.html
I was apprehensive at the beginning, but the results have been pleasantly surprising and satisfying.
http://www.rpsteeves.com/2012/12/wrapped-up-like-comics-review-before.html