Prequels to Watchmen?

"Brother can you spare a dime? Or a half eaten Quizno's sub?"

Director Zack Synder's work is often maligned. Most people thought Sucker Punch was God-awful and even though 300 has a strong following (myself included) many, like my close friend, feel the film was a homo-erotic blood fest. I wholeheartedly disagree but that's a post for a different time.

Then there's 2009's Watchmen. If you are going to do a movie based on the quintessential and perhaps best graphic novel ever created, you better do it right. For the most part I thought Snyder was successful. It did a fantastic job of examining Cold War and nuclear fears during the 1980s. Furthermore, it did a great job of deconstructing the "superhero" concept through characters like The Comedian, just like the graphic novel did. Jackie Earle Haley's performance as Rorschach was Academy Award worthy and despite a distinct change to the ending, overall I loved the film.*

One guy who didn't appreciate the film was the graphic novel's writer Alan Moore. He went so far as to insist that they remove his name from the credits, that's how upset he was.

Wednesday's news from DC Entertainment didn't please him either.

DC Entertainment released a statement that DC Comics would be running a series of comics this summer called "Before Watchmen." The comics will examine the back story of characters like Rorschach and Nite Owl. This is an obvious precursor to possible movies as Watchmen prequels and sequels have been talked about since the film was released three years ago. However, I question whether or not sequels or prequels to Watchmen are even needed. Aside from the fact that the film was fine on it's own, it barely made $185 million worldwide after a $130 million budget. In addition to poor reviews I just don't see how followups to Watchmen would fair well.

As I mentioned, Alan Moore was not pleased by the announcement from DC Entertainment calling the move "completely shameless" and that DC is "still apparently dependent on ideas that I had 25 years ago." Moore goes on to say that the move "only weakens the argument that comics are an authentic form of literature. As far as I know there weren't that many prequels or sequels to 'Moby Dick.'"

While I agree with Moore's contention that DC's move indicates a lack originality on their part (just like Hollywood!), his later comments bare a little analysis. I'm actually of the opinion that certain graphic novels should be considered literature, Watchmen being one of them. After all Time magazine named Watchmen #99 out of the top 100 novels of the 20th century and despite the fact that they once gave Hitler the Man of the Year Award, their stamp of approval comes with a high degree of credibility. Other graphic novels such as Art Spiegelman's Mauschwitz, which retells the story of Jews during the Holocaust through the platform of cats and mice, or In the Shadow of No Towers (also by Spiegelman) about the WTC bombing, fall into the category of literature. Hell I'll even include Moore's The Dark Knight Returns based on it's in depth look into media and psychology.

Notice I said certain graphic novels. Cowboys and Aliens doesn't fall into that category. And boy does Moore have testicular fortitude for comparing Watchmen and himself to Moby Dick and Herman Melville. Let's not get crazy here Alan. While I sincerely respect your contributions and how groundbreaking Watchmen was, I'm not putting you or the work on par with Hawthorne, Dickens, or Sophocles just yet. Why he said that last part is beyond me.

Maybe the beard roots are starting to eat into his brain.

*Incidentally I also think the Watchmen blu-ray is one of the best out that there and the Director's Cut is the best of any film I've ever seen.