Off My Mind: Should There Be a Sequel to WATCHMEN?

  • 168 results
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
Posted by G-Man (32458 posts) - - Show Bio

WATCHMEN is the book all comic fans should have read. Long seen as a true classic, even many non-comic book readers have checked it out way before a movie adaptation was attempted. Since it's debut in 1986, the series has received praise and acclaim as one of the best stories written. The collected book has seen numerous printed editions and has been used in several college and university courses. WATCHMEN has been elevated to a near-untouchable level. It stands on its own and that's all that we need.

Yet since before the twelve-issue series went on sale, there has been talk of prequels involving other characters and exploring the time before the story took place. The idea of revisiting the Watchmen Universe soon became an idea that many felt should never be allowed to happen. There has been a bit of recent rumblings and rumors that DC Comics has plans in the work, under a secret title, to revisit the world of the Watchmen.

Before any official confirmations or denials could be issued, people are arguing over whether this should happen. Should the beloved WATCHMEN characters be used once again or is the story too much of a classic now and should remain as it is?

== TEASER ==

As the story goes, Alan Moore and Dave Gibbons originally had the idea to do a twelve-issue series on the Minutemen if WATCHMEN was a success. DC apparently also talked about the possibility of other writers doing prequels with Rorschach and the Comedian. Obviously these projects never happened and soon an ugly mess developed between Moore and DC. Rumors would pop up every now and then but it appeared that nothing would ever come of them.

Yikes!

In early 2010, there was a report that the possibility of the Watchmen Universe being revisited was now more possible than ever. With DC's creation of the Countdown multiverse, one world almost was set aside for the Watchmen Universe. That also meant the door could be open for insane crossovers with DC characters and Watchmen ones.

Things heated up once again as Bleeding Cool's Rich Johnston mentioned he was given information about the project being in the works. He posted that a fake working title was being used (Panic Room) for a set of prequels and as well as an image of the Comedian drawn by J.G. Jones and Nite Owl by Andy Kubert. There was also mention of the possibility of Amanda Conner doing a Silk Spectre project. Johnston was then apparently asked to remove the artwork by DC's legal department.

Whether there's any truth to those bits or not isn't really the point right now. The fact that the art had to be removed would lead you to believe that there could be some truth in the rumor or it could just be for other legal reasons and in trying to control the rumors flying around. The real question is, should there be any prequels or sequels?

Hardcore Watchmen fans will scream, "NO!" but there are plenty that would be willing to give more Watchmen content a chance. If DC still owns the rights, they are fully entitled to do whatever they want to with the characters and universe.

Let's think about it, with WATCHMEN held in such high regard, would anyone attempt to do a subpar tie-in? DC has access to many of the industry's top talent. If there were any plans on prequels or sequels, you would think (or hope or assume) they would put as much care and thought into it as possible.

Revisiting the Watchmen Universe is something that you could only really try once. If a poor attempt was made, readers wouldn't be too forgiving or willing to give a third visit a chance. It simply means too much to too many people.

For those that are strongly opposed regardless of who DC could get to work on any related projects, the biggest statement they could make is to simply not purchase and support it. They can just look the other way. They can act as if it doesn't exist and never happened.

Does it make sense to see more Watchmen project? Sure. The characters and world of Watchmen is ripe with potential. Besides the Minutemen set in the 1940s, there could easily be prequels on other characters. What was the Comedian's full story and exploits? When did Hollis Mason pass the Nite Owl torch over to Dan Dreiberg? There are also the exploits of Doctor Manhattan, Ozymandias or the original Silk Spectre.

What about a sequel? The idea is bound to make many cringe in fear and disgust. Prequels could possibly be acceptable but is there any room to visit the characters after the original series ended?

Because we're talking about comic books, we all know anything is possible. What happened to Nite Owl and Silk Spectre? (Although perhaps Sally changes her name since she felt Silk Spectre was too 'girly'). Rorschach's journals were left behind, could we see someone follow in his footsteps? Did Dr. Manhattan ever return to Earth? He did say, "Nothing ever ends." In comic books, that is often the case. WATCHMEN took place in 1985. What is that world like now, in the 21st Century?

We could draw some comparisons to other things that have resulted in sequels that many didn't care for. One example would be the Star Wars movies. Many feel that the prequels should never have been made and George Lucas should not be allowed to make any tweaks or updates to the films. Because they are his and he holds the rights, he can do whatever he pleases. Again, people can choose not to watch or support them if they feel offended by them.

Frank Miller's THE DARK KNIGHT RETURNS is another comic seen as a classic (although not on quite the same level as WATCHMEN). It was released when I first started reading comics and, like many, I was blown away by what it was and represented. When THE DARK KNIGHT STRIKES AGAIN came out, I was hesitant to read it. I started and will admit, I still haven't finished reading it. It didn't feel right to me so I decided to set it aside and perhaps some day I will complete it.

It's all about choices. We may love something so much that we feel we have the right to voice our opinions. And we do have that right. We can say all we want. What it comes down to is whoever owns the rights can what they want. We can only hope they will do it properly with the care and respect we would want and demand. If not, we move on and act as if it doesn't exist. Getting in a tirade over something won't accomplish anything.

For now, we can just wait and see. There hasn't been any official word. If DC does plan on more Watchmen, I will be there to check it out and make my decision based on the actual material. Making a decision before or even worrying about it before anything happens isn't worth the time. There are plenty of other existing comics we can be reading and talking about instead.

Staff
#1 Posted by Powerzone789 (430 posts) - - Show Bio

no...no...AND NO!!! anyone else would screw it up

#2 Posted by RedheadedAtrocitus (6885 posts) - - Show Bio

I just cannot see any success behind a reported prequel/sequel unless Alan Moore and Dave Gibbons actually do it themselves. Only then can it be something I think worthy of mention and pursuit. I've heard this may be part of Grant Morrison's upcoming Multiversity project, but who can really say for certain? I don't know, maybe this instance is just like what Kevin Smith said when he was first approached to do a sequel to Beetlejuice, and that is, can there be anything of real circumstance in a sequel that the original maxi series didn't already cover? Is there really any need? If it takes the saga in new directions, perhaps so. I just don't want sequels and prequels cheapening this ultimate classic.

#3 Posted by lorex (954 posts) - - Show Bio

I don't see how they could go forward from where the graphic novel left off but there is certainly lots of room if done properly to tell the story in more detail how the costumed heroes got started up until the bill banning costumed heroes.

#4 Posted by JonesDeini (3620 posts) - - Show Bio

Short answer, no. I don't think there's any need to revisit it. If they do, I simply won't read it. like I tend to do with stuff I don't like.

#5 Posted by Mbecks14 (2068 posts) - - Show Bio

NO! THis is a tragedy. It's a story with a definitive end. I dont want to see it revisited and ultimately messed up. I dont want to hear Alan Moore whine about it. And i didnt even really enjoy the first one anyway. It's not a franchise, it's a story. Let it stay that way.

#6 Edited by cmaprice (809 posts) - - Show Bio

Watchmen stands on its own. No need to go in now just to cash in on it. It worked in the first place because it broke the rules and served as an allegory. It had something to say at the end days of an era.

Even with all its faults, the original mini-series said everything it needed to say.

If a writer today wants to make a series that captured us the way Watchmen did, they should start fresh with a new world and new characters and make their own statements about society.

I will say, if they wanted to make an alternate universe take on the characters that and incorporated them into another corner of the DCU, I think that could be to the benefit of DC. Don't directly reference the events of Watchmen, but use the characters and concepts as a jumping off points. They would be to the original series as any alternate reality version of Batman or Superman is to the originals. If done right, it could work. It's not necessary, but it's preferable to either being bogged down in the established world or most probably shooting themselves and the fans in the foot by making direct sequels.

#7 Edited by Herx (374 posts) - - Show Bio

Not possible i say., Not possible at all. A sequel is/could never happen as Watchment is a book set in a certain time period and writen on a "what if" situation based around that period. It was contemporary and trying to make a sequel would be impossible as 26 years have already gone past and if your trying to write a sequel to it you'd either be writing a sequel set 26 years later with new younger characters e.g. the third niteowl, set in another "what if" situation set in 2011 which would be "watchmen only in name and not characters, or you'd end up going back and wrting a story in the 80's again but with alagories of 2011 politics replacing thoes ones of the 1980's. A prequil would be a better idea, but i just would seem right. Realy the only things you could do is to make a "spiritual sequel" to watchmen, set in another universe, with other characters but with the same tone and the same depth and interesting characters. The time for a direct sequel and prequel have long since past, and the original creative team are against the idea.

And now if you dont mind i must watch my cartoons:

#8 Edited by The_Tree (7284 posts) - - Show Bio

I don't want a sequel because I like how what happens next is left to the imagination. I would however, read a series of prequels as long as they were well written, and don't conflict with the main story. I'd definitely be open to Comedian and Nite Owl prequels, they were my favorite characters.

#9 Posted by feebadger (1445 posts) - - Show Bio

@Herx said:

Not possible i say., Not possible at all. A sequel is/could never happen as Watchment is a book set in a certain time period and writen on a "what if" situation based around that period. It was contemporary and trying to make a sequel would be impossible as 26 years have already gone past and if your trying to write a sequel to it you'd either be writing a sequel set 26 years later with new younger characters e.g. the third niteowl, set in another "what if" situation set in 2011 which would be "watchmen only in name and not characters, or you'd end up going back and wrting a story in the 80's again but with alagories of 2011 politics replacing thoes ones of the 1980's. A prequil would be a better idea, but i just would seem right. Realy the only things you could do is to make a "spiritual sequel" to watchmen, set in another universe, with other characters but with the same tone and the same depth and interesting characters. The time for a direct sequel and prequel have long since past, and the original creative team are against the idea.

And now if you dont mind i must watch my cartoons:

Couldn't say any of this any better (and the Watchmen Morning cartoon is BRILLiant).

#10 Posted by leokearon (1790 posts) - - Show Bio

A sequel would never work as it goes against the idea behind the ending.

#11 Posted by saoakden (1040 posts) - - Show Bio

I think a prequel would be a better idea for a couple of the Watchmen. Some of them had their back stories explained during the story but I think when the teamed first formed would be a decent idea for a comic. The end of the story was a couple of them dead, one leaves (Manhatten), two are a couple & the other lives with the burden of his actions and Dr. Manhatten's parting words.

Some classics might deserve a sequel or a prequel or whatever kind of sequel there might be. The Dark Knight Returns yes, All Star Superman, I can't imagine being one.

#12 Posted by BlackArmor (6137 posts) - - Show Bio

Disney does lots of sequels and prequels to their classics and guess what they all suck. Have you ever seen the little mermaid 2? How about Aladdin 4

Same thing applies to Watchmen

#13 Posted by EdwardWindsor (14428 posts) - - Show Bio

No Moore no Watchman

#14 Posted by BlackArmor (6137 posts) - - Show Bio
#15 Posted by GuruOfFunk (442 posts) - - Show Bio

Not everything needs a sequel.

#16 Posted by The Devil Tiger (1263 posts) - - Show Bio

NOOOOOO ! The idea of a sequel of watchmen is truly horrific ! More seriously, the odds of producing a thing even remotely correct is very slim. Watchmen changed the super hero paradygme, what are the change to create a equally worthy sequel ?

#17 Posted by starrk_coyote (623 posts) - - Show Bio

H A V E Y O U L O S T Y O U R M I N D !?!?!?!?!?! NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

NO SEQUEL! PERIOD!

#18 Posted by Billy Batson (57957 posts) - - Show Bio

No.
BB

#19 Posted by EugeneSaxe (227 posts) - - Show Bio

He got it right the first time. Let it be.

#20 Posted by VanAce (139 posts) - - Show Bio

I thought they were more likely to be prequels which would make much more sense.

And like all good prequels it will be about when they were babies.
#21 Posted by Catman9 (318 posts) - - Show Bio

Not unless they bring Rorschach back from the dead. He was the only thing I liked about Watchmen.

#22 Posted by DarthShap (875 posts) - - Show Bio

I say wait & see. This is comic book, not trying to add a third testament to the Bible. Some people take this way too seriously.

I just hope the quality is good, not like DK2 (the best example that sometimes, you should change the creative team for your sequel/prequel).

#23 Posted by ohrenclez (77 posts) - - Show Bio

In my opinion only Alan Moore should have the rights to allow any Watchmen-related stories.

And I don't see him working with DC anytime soon :D

#24 Posted by tectonic_prose (17 posts) - - Show Bio

Just in case the people up top are taking a look at these boards; anyone involved with this decimation of art for profits is a sick, twisted person. We WILL NOT SEE THIS MOVIE, BUY THIS BOOK, ANYTHING; it's simple not going to be profitable by boycott. I tell you what Mr. AOL -TIME WARNER exec, you may think that you can endlessly profit off of your monopolization of nerd couture, but don't forget it's us TRUE nerds; pretentious, involved, and obsessive, that shaped this culture and created your multibillion dollar industry. We know when you're trying to make a fast buck off of us and will see through this spiel. Many of us wouldn't even go see the film, and when we did we walked out with our heads bowed in shame. You can't dookie-a-shooter, call it Watchman, and expect us to believe anything about the project of any value came from minds other than a few decent actors and the incredible mind of Mr. Alan Moore. Do NOT play with this kind of fire. While your at it, please, give us that Beowulf sequel we've been waiting 1,200 years for or maybe just write a whole new book for the Iliad, you pricks!

#25 Posted by Sawcesome (134 posts) - - Show Bio

Prequels would be pretty awesome. A sequel is something I wouldn't be happy about. The only way any of it is allowable, though, is if Moore is in charge. If not, revisiting the Watchmen is doomed to failure.

#26 Posted by tectonic_prose (17 posts) - - Show Bio

@DarthShap: You're right. The bible is boring.

#27 Posted by CATPANEXE (9368 posts) - - Show Bio

Sure, why not.

#28 Posted by Sumnerus (25 posts) - - Show Bio

Some works in the comic medium are simply sacred and should be left alone. Marvels is another piece i would hate to see watered down

Just my opinion :)

#29 Edited by DarthShap (875 posts) - - Show Bio

@Sumnerus said:

Some works in the comic medium are simply sacred and should be left alone. Marvels is another piece i would hate to see watered down

Just my opinion :)

"Sacred". Yeah right! ^^

Do not get me wrong, it is one of the best comic book in History but come on, it is still just that, a comic book.

#30 Edited by damswedon (499 posts) - - Show Bio

No. Just no.

I'd hope that any writer DC asked to do it would be smart enough and respectable enough to turn it down.

#31 Posted by ComicCrazy (1537 posts) - - Show Bio

Sorry I hate to be dismissive but NO NONONONONONONONNONOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

#32 Edited by Doctorchimp (62 posts) - - Show Bio

I always saw Watchmen as specifically Alan Moore's take on superheroes if they were real and how they would affect the world.

Watchmen itself is a satire of heroes, to have DC seriously want to expand on that universe without Moore or Gibson is kind of missing the point..

Why does it have to be Rorschach and the Comedian? Like really? They can't think of any other characters to do a story with?

Of course not, they want to specifically cash in on the Watchmen characters, when the watchmen characters were used instead of actual DC superheroes because that was the only way he could tell the story he wanted to tell.

Again I can't express how utterly confused I am how anyone could miss that or how somebody would be excited to want to read a prequel/sequel, do you even know why you like The Watchmen?

It's like The Producers where they put on Springtime for Hitler and it becomes a smash hit.

#33 Posted by Doctorchimp (62 posts) - - Show Bio

@DarthShap said:

@Sumnerussaid:

Some works in the comic medium are simply sacred and should be left alone. Marvels is another piece i would hate to see watered down

Just my opinion :)

"Sacred". Yeah right! ^^

Do not get me wrong, it is one of the best comic book in History but come on, it is still just that, a comic book.

It's not so much that it's sacred, but it's like somebody wanting to do a gritty Ghostbusters remake that's actually scary...

It is a comic book, but a comic book that didn't treat its characters like any other comic superhero that was supposed to star in a book for years. By doing this they're taking away why Watchmen is so unique.

#34 Posted by Om1kron (1170 posts) - - Show Bio

Watchmen while a great movie, is slow paced and super boring. I seriously doubt Zach Snyder could trick anyone else into watching a movie after that debauchery called SUCKER PUNCH. A lot of people I know thought the watchmen movie was horrible. I watched it about twice and anytime after that I can't stay awake through it.  
 
I seriously would watch something based around Rorschach, because he was the biggest bad ass in the movie. But other than that the interest is just not there. 

#35 Posted by ReVamp (22865 posts) - - Show Bio

@BlackArmor: LOL. The Comedian is awesome there.

Normally I always say 'yes' to questions like this, nothing can generally be really hurt my extra content. Watchman however... no. The answer's no. A Prequel on the other hand would not be a bad idea in any manner.

#36 Posted by DarthShap (875 posts) - - Show Bio

@Doctorchimp said:

@DarthShap said:

@Sumnerussaid:

Some works in the comic medium are simply sacred and should be left alone. Marvels is another piece i would hate to see watered down

Just my opinion :)

"Sacred". Yeah right! ^^

Do not get me wrong, it is one of the best comic book in History but come on, it is still just that, a comic book.

It's not so much that it's sacred, but it's like somebody wanting to do a gritty Ghostbusters remake that's actually scary...

It is a comic book, but a comic book that didn't treat its characters like any other comic superhero that was supposed to star in a book for years. By doing this they're taking away why Watchmen is so unique.

Did you not read the article? From the get-go, they were already thinking about doing prequels and possibly sequels to the Watchmen miniseries.

#37 Edited by Doctorchimp (62 posts) - - Show Bio

@DarthShap said:

@Doctorchimp said:

@DarthShap said:

@Sumnerussaid:

Some works in the comic medium are simply sacred and should be left alone. Marvels is another piece i would hate to see watered down

Just my opinion :)

"Sacred". Yeah right! ^^

Do not get me wrong, it is one of the best comic book in History but come on, it is still just that, a comic book.

It's not so much that it's sacred, but it's like somebody wanting to do a gritty Ghostbusters remake that's actually scary...

It is a comic book, but a comic book that didn't treat its characters like any other comic superhero that was supposed to star in a book for years. By doing this they're taking away why Watchmen is so unique.

Did you not read the article? From the get-go, they were already thinking about doing prequels and possibly sequels to the Watchmen miniseries.

No, they wanted to do a Minutemen prequel mini.

When DC said, "cool oh by the way we're going to get some other writers to start working on sequels and some Rorschach stories" Alan Moore called the whole thing off.

Like I said though, this was all about Alan Moore's take on superheroes because he couldn't do this story with DC heroes.

To have a bunch of writers come in and just start treating them like any other comic hero is beyond weird

#38 Posted by DarthShap (875 posts) - - Show Bio

@Doctorchimp:

Moore did not call anything off because of an "artistic difference" or something. He was mad because DC screwed him on his contract so that he would never recover the rights to the license.

Yes, because Moore wanted to kill or completely change the Charlton characters, DC forced him to create new ones based on them but it does not change a thing.

Every comic book character starts of as someone's creation. It does not mean that he should be the only one who gets to use it.

#39 Posted by DarthShap (875 posts) - - Show Bio

Alan Moore :

“They offered me the rights to Watchmen back, if I would agree to some dopey prequels and sequels, So I just told them that if they said that 10 years ago, when I asked them for that, then yeah it might have worked, But these days I don’t want Watchmen back. Certainly, I don’t want it back under those kinds of terms.”

See, this had nothing to do with "Moore's vision". He says here he would have done the sequels ten years ago. This is about the money!

#40 Posted by Tellumo (511 posts) - - Show Bio

I'm probably going to be murdered in ,my sleep for this but I didn't like watchmen...

#41 Posted by satanmode (295 posts) - - Show Bio
#42 Edited by Jonny_Anonymous (33049 posts) - - Show Bio

Come on guys it's not like it would be a big deal if it did happen, you could just ignore it, It's not like anyone talks about that Watchmen computer game that came out     
  

#43 Posted by Jonny_Anonymous (33049 posts) - - Show Bio
@Doctorchimp said:

@DarthShap said:

@Doctorchimp said:

@DarthShap said:

@Sumnerussaid:

Some works in the comic medium are simply sacred and should be left alone. Marvels is another piece i would hate to see watered down

Just my opinion :)

"Sacred". Yeah right! ^^

Do not get me wrong, it is one of the best comic book in History but come on, it is still just that, a comic book.

It's not so much that it's sacred, but it's like somebody wanting to do a gritty Ghostbusters remake that's actually scary...

It is a comic book, but a comic book that didn't treat its characters like any other comic superhero that was supposed to star in a book for years. By doing this they're taking away why Watchmen is so unique.

Did you not read the article? From the get-go, they were already thinking about doing prequels and possibly sequels to the Watchmen miniseries.

No, they wanted to do a Minutemen prequel mini.

When DC said, "cool oh by the way we're going to get some other writers to start working on sequels and some Rorschach stories" Alan Moore called the whole thing off.

Like I said though, this was all about Alan Moore's take on superheroes because he couldn't do this story with DC heroes.

To have a bunch of writers come in and just start treating them like any other comic hero is beyond weird

The Minutemen are the Watchmen
#44 Edited by InnerVenom123 (29499 posts) - - Show Bio

NO.

#45 Edited by Decept-O (7275 posts) - - Show Bio

I don't think some people read the article correctly. G-Man is talking about comic book prequels and/or sequels, at least for the time being. If I am wrong, I hope someone will let me know, but I didn't read anything about doing a movie in the article.

Just a quick aside, the Watchmen movie was close to the GN but doing a movie interpretation of the material just wasn't meant to be for some people, it was hard to truly appreciate for audiences not familiar with Watchmen to begin with.

I am hesitant to say I'd like to see anything else in terms of the Watchmen universe. However, I will admit, I'd be interested to read anything pertaining to the Minutemen and the earlier days of the characters. Anything after Ozymandis' actions I think shouldn't be done, it would take away from the poignant impact of Rorschach's actions.

Yet, knowing Alan Moore's contentions with DC over their proposed treatments of his characters and stories, I'd say that is even more impetus to simply leave Watchmen be.

#46 Posted by CATPANEXE (9368 posts) - - Show Bio

@Sumnerus said:

Some works in the comic medium are simply sacred and should be left alone. Marvels is another piece i would hate to see watered down

Just my opinion :)

They did a sequel to Marvels, directly, as well as an alternate universe spin and a few spin-offs already, all of them excellent and of equal caliber to the original.

#47 Posted by kingjoeg (693 posts) - - Show Bio

yes, prequel comics would be good.

#48 Posted by thecheckeredman (398 posts) - - Show Bio

NO!

#49 Posted by mikeclark1982 (424 posts) - - Show Bio

i have bought this book 3 times over. once i bought a pre owned first printing, gave it to an ex (UGH!) bought it again, gave it to my college british lit professor. bought it again. a prequel would be something i would want to see, but i would never want to see a sequel. if DC wants to make fans happy, they would ask us the fans FIRST

#50 Posted by Green ankh (998 posts) - - Show Bio

no

This edit will also create new pages on Comic Vine for:

Beware, you are proposing to add brand new pages to the wiki along with your edits. Make sure this is what you intended. This will likely increase the time it takes for your changes to go live.

Comment and Save

Until you earn 1000 points all your submissions need to be vetted by other Comic Vine users. This process takes no more than a few hours and we'll send you an email once approved.