Watchmen vs. DKR ---- SPOILER CITY BABY!!!!!

[chrisco37]

We've had some good debate going about the most important 80's books. I've conceded that in terms of importance, the DKR edges Watchmen.

 

However, in terms of just the story, I believe that Watchmen is far superior to DKR (which is one of my favorites).

 

Some of the reasons:

 

-The set up for Watchmen was so huge, yet the payoff was even better. The revalation that Ozymandius masterminded the whole thing, and then his reason(s) why makes him one of the best comic villains ever. Yes, DKR had Joker, but was he really anymore psychotic than the O'Neill version years before???

 

-When Dan and Rorschac confront Adrian and he tells them it's too late, "I did it 35 minutes ago" is one of the biggest "Oh Sh*t!!!!!" moments ever in comics.

 

-The whole story interwoven with the Pirate Comic is brilliant. Moore is the unquestionable master of this technique.

 

-DKR spawned DKSA.

 

There are many more (or is that Moore), but this is a good starting point.

 

Discuss!

[Foolkiller]

I have to agree with Chris on this one, and I love DKR:

 

Here's my rationale:

 

DKR changed the way we look at a particular character and set him in a future place where Batman was returned to his "bad [!@#%^&^]" self. Of course, what was done was just a modernization of who Batman is, what drives him and what he's all about. There was an exploration that extended beyond that, especially the conflict between Superman and Batman, and their polar opposite views of the world that both recognize a need for the other's, and a host of some other underlying themes but...

 

Watchmen was a story of commentary about super heroes in general. It dealt with concepts that had never been seen in comics before, and it was the start of super heroes in the "real world" and explored the depths of the psychosis (in some cases) and the outlook of how heroes would react were they actually real. It was the first time they acted and sounded like real people -- but not simply in the way they talked, but more in the manner in which they communicated.

[Jayman]

In terms of importance I agree that DKR edges out over Watchmen but only bearly. The two are very much top winners in my book. My opinion as to why DKR wins out is simply because of the character's established history in comics. I tended to care more about what happened to Bats and company since I was already familiar with the characters, opposed to the Watchmen characters who I was exposed to in this one and only story.

 

However, in terms of the crafting of the two stories, Watchmen wins hands down!

[chrisco37]

This quote is from FFB in the Genereal Thread "Most Important 80's Book":

 

Let's see if I can do this without spoilers.

 

If I can read and absorb 1,000 pages of dry legal opinions in a single day, I am pretty sure that something like Watchmen is not going to turn me off just because it is dense. The problem isn't that it was dense. I guess I just don't think that a comic book is "great" just because it introduces themes that haven't been used all that much before.

 

I think that what makes a comic book great is, primarily, good storytelling in both the visual sense and in the sense of the written word (i.e., good dialogue). DKR is far superior on both counts. In terms of dialogue/-script, there is no contest. Frank Miller is the master of using dialogue to differentiate characters. He manages to work so many different personalities into his -script that I often wonder whether he has MPD and gets his scripts from the voices in his head. Watchmen, on the other hand, has too many characters who sound exactly like one another.

 

And the "action" in the Watchmen (in both mundane scenes and in the real "action" scenes) just does not convey the story the way it needs to. My first test of good storytelling in comics is whether I can tell more or less what is going on in the story just by looking at the pictures. With Watchmen, sometimes you can and sometimes you can't. And if I have to read sixteen pages of word balloons (or even worse, a long narrative at the end of each book that just as easily could have been told in comic book form, and probably would have had greater impact if it had been) in order to get the point, the comic book writer has failed. He might have a great story, but he doesn't have a great comic book.

[chrisco37]

If I can read and absorb 1,000 pages of dry legal opinions in a single day, I am pretty sure that something like Watchmen is not going to turn me off just because it is dense.

 

Obviously. I read technical specs all day (alot more dense than 'Watchmen'), but for a comic, it's pretty dense.

 

In terms of dialogue/-script, there is no contest. Frank Miller is the master of using dialogue to differentiate characters. He manages to work so many different personalities into his -script that I often wonder whether he has MPD and gets his scripts from the voices in his head.

 

He writes a great story, no doubt, but I have to stronlgy disagree. You (generic) already have an idea in your head of what Batman 'sounds like', his voice. Same with the Joker, Superman, etc.... The only 'new' characters introduced (besides the peripherals) were the 'new Robin' and the Mutant Leader.

 

Watchmen, on the other hand, has too many characters who sound exactly like one another.

 

They all have their own distinct 'voices'. Are you saying that you read Nite Owl/Dan the same as you read Dr. Manhattan/Jon or Rorschac/Kovacs? What about Ozymandius/Adrian? Did he 'sound' the same to you as The Comedian/Blake?

 

whether I can tell more or less what is going on in the story just by looking at the pictures. With Watchmen, sometimes you can and sometimes you can't.

 

We'll have to disagree here as well. Your point is taken, but with something as complex as Watchmen, you need more than just the pictures to tell the story. It's so much deeper than just pictures. Also, how else would learn about the characters? Moore introduced 'new' characters (actually revised Charlton characters). He didn't have the 40+ yrs. of character development that Miller had when he wrote DKR. You knew who those characters were, and it was possible to tell the story with only artwork.

 

He might have a great story, but he doesn't have a great comic book.

 

[OldGuy]

I found the spoiler warning in your subject line humorous. I think anyone that hasn't read these series yet has no intention of doing so.

 

Darth brought up this point in another thread. What is the statute of limitations on spoiler warnings? 20 years? 30?....

 

[25CentComic]

I found the spoiler warning in your subject line humorous. I think anyone that hasn't read these series yet has no intention of doing so.

 

Darth brought up this point in another thread. What is the statute of limitations on spoiler warnings? 20 years? 30?....

 

 

More like 5 years.

[chrisco37]

I found the spoiler warning in your subject line humorous. I think anyone that hasn't read these series yet has no intention of doing so.

 

Darth brought up this point in another thread. What is the statute of limitations on spoiler warnings? 20 years? 30?....

 

 

Good question really. I don't know what the limit would be. As I stated earlier, I first read Watchmen only 2-1/2 - 3 years ago. I can't be alone. I'm sure there are people that haven't read it that would like to. I was looking out for their interest.

 

Damn! It's like being with my girlfriend. Even when I try and do something right, I still up.

[supapimp]

DKR wins by a mile!

[chrisco37]

DKR wins by a mile!

 

Care to elaborate?

[supapimp]

don't need too, most forum members agree by a margin of 4-1.

[OldGuy]

Damn! It's like being with my girlfriend. Even when I try and do something right, I still up.

 

I like your girlfriend.

[The Brain]

Moore asked the question:"Who watches the watchmen?" This is to say that power corrupts

 

and absolute power corrupts absolutly. Miller asked the question:"What makes a hero?"

 

What Miller showed was that in 'The Dark Knight' it was heart. Both books are a MUST READ

 

for any true comic fan.

 

 

 

 

 

 

PS: Thanks Architecht for giving us a place to talk about this.

[Sharkey]

Ok, I'm going to paste my comments from the other thread as well....

 

 

Good calls, Zonker. Reading 'Watchmen' in TPB can be overwhelming. There are so many things going on in the stroy, plus the reader has to learn all these 'new' characters. It's heavy reading for a comic. Only 'From Hell' is more reading intensive than 'Watchmen'.

 

'Watchmen' was ten times better the second time around (as you had an idea of who the characters are and what they represent. Easier to focus solely on the story). And even better after that.

 

Let's see if I can do this without spoilers.

 

If I can read and absorb 1,000 pages of dry legal opinions in a single day, I am pretty sure that something like Watchmen is not going to turn me off just because it is dense. The problem isn't that it was dense. I guess I just don't think that a comic book is "great" just because it introduces themes that haven't been used all that much before.

 

I think that what makes a comic book great is, primarily, good storytelling in both the visual sense and in the sense of the written word (i.e., good dialogue). DKR is far superior on both counts. In terms of dialogue/-script, there is no contest. Frank Miller is the master of using dialogue to differentiate characters. He manages to work so many different personalities into his -script that I often wonder whether he has MPD and gets his scripts from the voices in his head. Watchmen, on the other hand, has too many characters who sound exactly like one another.

 

And the "action" in the Watchmen (in both mundane scenes and in the real "action" scenes) just does not convey the story the way it needs to. My first test of good storytelling in comics is whether I can tell more or less what is going on in the story just by looking at the pictures. With Watchmen, sometimes you can and sometimes you can't. And if I have to read sixteen pages of word balloons (or even worse, a long narrative at the end of each book that just as easily could have been told in comic book form, and probably would have had greater impact if it had been) in order to get the point, the comic book writer has failed. He might have a great story, but he doesn't have a great comic book.

 

 

I agree and disagree with you (yes, I am a politician). I think both Watchmen and DKR are GREAT comic books, but for different reasons. And I don't think it is a matter of whether something is too dense or complicated.

 

To some degree this may come down to personal preferences (some people like noir, others sci-fi, others Westerns, etc), or maybe its just the way peoples' brains are wired. You liked DKR WAY more than Watchment, which is ok.

 

Watchmen blew me away even the first time I read it and I agree with what was said before that on subsequent readings it gets better. And I can say the same for DKR. I love both and believe they were both VERY influential to the entire genre. It's just my opinion that I think Watchmen was more unique in the genre at the time. Why do I think that? Maybe because the underlying story was more involved and detailed than DKR (ie, longer) and maybe also because there was no bias of having known characters in the story. By having a complete cast of new characters in a new universe, Moore was able to bypass the issue of "This character would never act like that" that some people expressed with DKR. Of course, people who say that are forgetting that these are FICTIONAL COMIC BOOKS that are influenced by the writer, but it happens, and I have been guilty of it--I want my characters to act consistently regardless of the writer.

 

I thought Moore did a great job writing an amazing tale. He's been known to do that from time to time. And so is Miller.

 

The cool thing about DKR is that Frank wrote AND drew it, which may explain why you feel it's paced better and explains the story better visually. It probably does do that better than Watchmen because the guy who wrote it also drew it and could translate his thoughts to the storyboards in an exact manner.

 

I also loved DKR2. Plastic Man was awesome.

[FFB]

The cool thing about DKR is that Frank wrote AND drew it, which may explain why you feel it's paced better and explains the story better visually. It probably does do that better than Watchmen because the guy who wrote it also drew it and could translate his thoughts to the storyboards in an exact manner.

 

You've hit the nail on the head right here in terms of why I think DKR is superior. Like I said, I think what makes a great comic book is clear and creative visual storytelling along with a great story. I am not arguing that Watchmen was not a great story. It was. My preference for DKR (and believe me, I'm usually no great Batman fan ), was because I thought that Miller really nailed it when it came to the visual storytelling aspect of the book, whereas I did not think that Moore and Gibbons achieved the same level of visual storytelling (which is the sine qua non of the comic book medium to me) in Watchmen. A great story, but as a "comic book," no big deal. If he had turned the narrative sections at the end of each book into comic book form, I probably would have liked it more. But even then, I just don't think they told as good of a visual story as Frank did in DKR.

[FFB]

They all have their own distinct 'voices'. Are you saying that you read Nite Owl/Dan the same as you read Dr. Manhattan/Jon or Rorschac/Kovacs? What about Ozymandius/Adrian? Did he 'sound' the same to you as The Comedian/Blake?

 

The only character who really struck me as a unique character was Rohrshach. Hurm....

 

whether I can tell more or less what is going on in the story just by looking at the pictures. With Watchmen, sometimes you can and sometimes you can't.

 

We'll have to disagree here as well. Your point is taken, but with something as complex as Watchmen, you need more than just the pictures to tell the story. It's so much deeper than just pictures. Also, how else would learn about the characters? Moore introduced 'new' characters (actually revised Charlton characters). He didn't have the 40+ yrs. of character development that Miller had when he wrote DKR. You knew who those characters were, and it was possible to tell the story with only artwork.

 

We do disagree. The whole point of doing it in comic book form is to adapt the story to the visual medium. If he fails at that, he might have a great story, but he doesn't have a great comic book.

[supapimp]

i've had non fanboy's read DKR while in the hospital to pass the time, and they've said that reading DKR is like watching a movie. it's visually stunning with his use of angles and negative space. i wonder why Miller and Moore never collaborated on any projects?

[FFB]

i've had non fanboy's read DKR while in the hospital to pass the time, and they've said that reading DKR is like watching a movie. it's visually stunning with his use of angles and negative space. i wonder why Miller and Moore never collaborated on any projects?

 

Miller doesn't need Moore. He is a superb writer and artist. In fact, his art is better when he writes his own stuff and vice versa.

[FFB]

Hurray, almost 24 hours since my last post with no response from Chrisco! I win the debate!

 

 

 

 

[supapimp]

bored at work again?