The Outhouse - The Greatest Comic Book Forum

[LOLtron]

Idiot's Guide takes a look at the effect of unauthorized derivatives have on classic literature.


"As far as I know, there aren't that many sequels – or prequels to Moby Dick" – Alan Moore.

When asked about his opinion about the just-announced prequels to his acclaimed Watchman series, Alan Moore, the writer of the series who has since separated himself from the work, issued a scathing reply, noting that no one had written a prequel or sequel to the Herman Melville classic whaling novel Moby-Dick. Many fans have expressed their disapproval of the Watchmen prequel, noting that the series enjoys a heightened status that should preclude it from being subjected to watered down derivatives made without any input by the original creative team.

I find it a little humorous that the timing of this announcement lines up with the release of Journey 2: The Mysterious Island, a movie featuring Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson and adapted, in part, by Jules Verne's The Mysterious Island. The Mysterious Island is one of Verne's lesser-known works and is a direct sequel to his more famous novel 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea. In fact, Journey 2 directly references the Nautilus in its television commercials, with one clip showing the famed vessel at the bottom of the sea.

There are many famed literary works that have had lesser-known sequels. The Three Musketeers was the first of four novel featuring D'Artagnan and his allies, culminating in The Man in the Iron Mask. Ender's Game was also the first in the series, none of which came close to matching the popularity of the original Orson Scott Card series. Tom Sawyer becomes a detective in one of Mark Twain's last novels. While some might argue that these secondary titles somehow lessened the appeal of the original, the more famed works' ongoing popularity says otherwise.

Even more literary classics have had sequels written by authors not affiliated with the original writer. The Count of Monte Cristo had three sequels written, two of which were written while Dumas was still alive. James Bond's adventures have continued on through the use of six different writers after Ian Fleming died in 1964, several of which were adapted into movies. An unauthorized sequel to Don Quixote Volume 1 angered Cervantes so much that the writer lampooned it in the second volume of the book (the second volume, by the way, is often considered to be the birth of modern literature). Pride and Prejudice has spawned a number of unauthorized sequels as did Gone with the Wind. Of the many sequels to Dracula, one was even written by Bram Stoker's direct descendent. Even Moby-Dick spawned a sequel in which Ishmael hunted flying whales on spaceships. To come up with a full list of unauthorized sequels would take months. 

The truth of the matter is that literature and entertainment is filled with derivative works. Is A Study in Scarlet lessened by the BBC Sherlock series?  Is Morte d'Arthur somehow less of a book because of A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court?  Is Robin Hood ruined because of Ivanhoe?  None of these novels have affected the original's popularity in any way and if anything has only increased awareness and interest in the original.

Going one step further, many characters have been given extreme characterizations far outside of their intended purpose in various unauthorized work. In Moore's work alone, Dorothy and Alice have engaged in a lesbian relationship, explicitly portrayed in the comic Lost Girls, James Bond is an attempted rapist and Voldemort from the Harry Potter series pushes Mina Harker to the brink of insanity and possessed by a demonic entity before escaping through Platform 9 ¾ as a youth. 

One of the examples that I've heard about how the Watchmen sequels would affect the original's legacy are the much derided Star Wars prequels. However, I'd argue that the reason the Star Wars prequels are so disliked is because they were written by the original creator and failed to capture the magic of the original series despite the amount of money of promotion spent to make the project a reality. It should also be noted that Lucas always wanted to explore Darth Vader's history as early as 1977 and never gave up on the project, even after scrapping a sequel trilogy due to a nasty divorce. If anything, it is Lucas's continued involvement with the series and his continuous tampering with the work that "ruins" the Star Wars franchise, although the original series is still considered to be one of the greatest science-fiction movies of all time.

It would be accurate to say that the Watchmen prequels are a cash ploy by DC. It would also be accurate to say that Moore has every right to complain about DC using his property to make money. However, there is no foundation to back the claim that these Watchmen prequels will tarnish the legacy of the original series. If anything, these prequels only solidify its role as one of the great works of comics literature. To claim that is to say that the Torah has been ruined by the New Testament, that Hamlet was ruined by Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead or that Moby-Dick has been ruined by the Wind Whales of Ishmael.  Good literature will always be good literature and will outlast any inferior work no matter how cheap or poorly made they might be.

Written or Contributed by: Christian Hoffer


http://www.theouthousers.com/index.php/columns/idiots-guide-to-comics/18139-idiots-guide-weekly-will-watchmen-begins-tarnish-the-original.html/

[nietoperz]

Hear, hear!

[alaska1125]

Well said.

[Punchy]

It may not ruin the original, but it will lessen it's power. No longer will Watchmen stand alone as one of the few examples of a complete story in DC/Marvel Comics, but now the story is just the same as every other comic book out there.

Watchmen used to be on an elevated plane, this brings it back down to Earth and really exposes that the modern comics industry is not concerned with artistry or literary merits, but with cold hard cash. Most of us knew that already, but now it's plain to see.

Watchmen used to be special, now it's just another one of DC's thousands of Intellectual Properties on the production line.

[nietoperz]

It may not ruin the original, but it will lessen it's power. No longer will Watchmen stand alone as one of the few examples of a complete story in DC/Marvel Comics, but now the story is just the same as every other comic book out there.

Watchmen used to be on an elevated plane, this brings it back down to Earth and really exposes that the modern comics industry is not concerned with artistry or literary merits, but with cold hard cash. Most of us knew that already, but now it's plain to see.

Watchmen used to be special, now it's just another one of DC's thousands of Intellectual Properties on the production line.

Only if you allow it to be. Seriously, the presence of spin-offs can't diminish the power of the original unless we decide to allow them to do so in our heads.

[Punchy]

Only if you allow it to be. Seriously, the presence of spin-offs can't diminish the power of the original unless we decide to allow them to do so in our heads.

I disagree.

Everyone saying 'just ignore it' is wrong, that's a ridiculous thing to do, what kind of person just buries their head in the sand? Even if I don't read it myself it will still exist, it will still be on the shelves of every store next to Watchmen, it will still impact the world's perception of the original. It will still prove that DC are only out to milk all their cash-cows.

You can ignore it personally yes, but it's wider impact will still be felt, and to the outside world, Watchmen will be less than it was before.

[Timbales]

It may not ruin the original, but it will lessen it's power. No longer will Watchmen stand alone as one of the few examples of a complete story in DC/Marvel Comics, but now the story is just the same as every other comic book out there.

Watchmen used to be on an elevated plane, this brings it back down to Earth and really exposes that the modern comics industry is not concerned with artistry or literary merits, but with cold hard cash. Most of us knew that already, but now it's plain to see.

Watchmen used to be special, now it's just another one of DC's thousands of Intellectual Properties on the production line.

would you feel that way if the rights had reverted to Moore and he did another miniseries with the same characters?

[Punchy]

would you feel that way if the rights had reverted to Moore and he did another miniseries with the same characters?

Probably not, because then there probably would have been some artistic reasons for it. There are no need for Watchmen prequels, the story is full of flashbacks that do that job perfectly well. Moore himself may have details about the characters in his notes or his head that he didn't get across in the book and therefore a new story from him could have legitimate reasons for existing.

These ones, from other creators, no matter how good they are, really only exist to make more money for DC.

But that's a hypothetical, and I hate it when people use them to try and make others seem like hypocrites, it's a lazy argument.

[nietoperz]

I disagree.

Everyone saying 'just ignore it' is wrong, that's a ridiculous thing to do, what kind of person just buries their head in the sand? Even if I don't read it myself it will still exist, it will still be on the shelves of every store next to Watchmen, it will still impact the world's perception of the original. It will still prove that DC are only out to milk all their cash-cows.

You can't ignore it, and nor should you.

Of course you can, the same way you can ignore Pride and Prejudice and Zombies, for example, or all the Peter Pan sequels that have been written over the years. If this was Moore and Gibbons coming back to create extraneous prequels that would be one thing, but it isn't and as such work by JMS or Darwyn Cooke(for example) can't diminish it.

I really do think you're over-reacting quite profoundly, and I say this as someone who hates the idea of these prequels.

[Punchy]

Of course you can, the same way you can ignore Pride and Prejudice and Zombies, for example, or all the Peter Pan sequels that have been written over the years. If this was Moore and Gibbons coming back to create extraneous prequels that would be one thing, but it isn't and as such work by JMS or Darwyn Cooke(for example) can't diminish it.

I really do think you're over-reacting quite profoundly, and I say this as someone who hates the idea of these prequels.

Pride and Prejudice and Zombies is completely different to this, the writer of that book isn't claiming it to be a official or anything, like DC are here, it's just abit of fun.

I'm not over-reacting at all, I'm just not going to stick my fingers in my ears, I shouldn't have to do that.

[Timbales]

Probably not, because then there probably would have been some artistic reasons for it. There are no need for Watchmen prequels, the story is full of flashbacks that do that job perfectly well. Moore himself may have details about the characters in his notes or his head that he didn't get across in the book and therefore a new story from him could have legitimate reasons for existing.

These ones, from other creators, no matter how good they are, really only exist to make more money for DC.

But that's a hypothetical, and I hate it when people use them to try and make others seem like hypocrites, it's a lazy argument.

If you're feeling like a hypocrite, it's not my intention and I don't think it's a lazy argument. Alan Moore writes comics. It's only a matter of perception that he is an artist. The man does this to make money.

Personally, I'm looking forward to reading more stories featuring the Minutemen. The rest I don't really care for, no matter how nice the art may be. Possibly Silk Spectre, because Moore didn't really have any use for her or her mother other than to have some to get fucked.

[nietoperz]

Pride and Prejudice and Zombies is completely different to this, the writer of that book isn't claiming it to be a official or anything, like DC are here, it's just abit of fun.

I'm not over-reacting at all, I'm just not going to stick my fingers in my ears, I shouldn't have to do that.

You know, we're not talking about a serious issue here - we're talking about an entertainment product, one which we are free to ignore or otherwise.

Actually, I think BlueStreak used the best example when he brought up Rosenkrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead. That Tom Stoppard wrote that play in the late 1960s does not tend to diminish Hamlet (either the play or character) in any way - not just because it is a fine work, but because Shakespeare purists are under absolutely no obligation to pay the work even the slightest bit of mind. That's what this is.

Of course, you could always picket your LCS on release day...

[Punchy]

If you're feeling like a hypocrite, it's not my intention and I don't think it's a lazy argument. Alan Moore writes comics. It's only a matter of perception that he is an artist. The man does this to make money.

Personally, I'm looking forward to reading more stories featuring the Minutemen. The rest I don't really care for, no matter how nice the art may be. Possibly Silk Spectre, because Moore didn't really have any use for her or her mother other than to have some to get fucked.

It was your intention.

And comics creators are artists, certainly ones as good as Moore and Gibbons. If your argument here is that 'comics aren't art' then it's a terribly insulting one to all of us on this site.

What other stories can be told with these characters? We know what happens to them in the end, and any pertinent details from the past have always been shown. The events in these mini-series will have to, by necessity be light on major events.

[Timbales]

It was your intention.

.

No, it was an honest question because I don't have a relationship with you or know your opinions.

But now? Fuck off

[Punchy]

You know, we're not talking about a serious issue here - we're talking about an entertainment product, one which we are free to ignore or otherwise.

Actually, I think BlueStreak used the best example when he brought up Rosenkrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead. That Tom Stoppard wrote that play in the late 1960s does not tend to diminish Hamlet (either the play or character) in any way - not just because it is a fine work, but because Shakespeare purists are under absolutely no obligation to pay the work even the slightest bit of mind. That's what this is.

Of course, you could always picket your LCS on release day...

I'm not going to do anything like that, my reaction is more one of disappointment than anger.

I don't understand why so many of you guys have been so accepting of this, maybe it's because you're older and less reactionary, or maybe I'm just more of a dick, but it's infuriating me how many posters on here are OK with this, yet they were all full of rage when Harley Quinn got a new costume or Spider-Man became single. You yourself didn't read any Marvel comics for many years because of what Quesada and Bendis and others did to some of your favourites, but you're OK with this?

And I think this is important, since it's about more than just Watchmen, it's also about artistic integrity in the comic book medium.

I know it's all entertainment and not really important, but in terms of comics media stories, this is towards the serious end for me.