I can't tell what's going on in 3/4 of the panels and, as the link in the last thread pointed out, it's chock-full of obvious porn face. The storyline itself is kind of interesting, but the art is just painful.

To be honest, if you guys hadn't mentioned it, I don't think I even would've noticed. It looks (to me) like most of the art I see when I look at Marvel books.

---

Too me, in addition to looking like a bad photoshop job, the panels tend to be too cluttered and the character's facial expressions don't actually match up with what's going on. (ETA: Not just because of the porn face, but most of the expressions in general.)

---

I miss reading comics. I need to catch up on my titles one of these days. Or perhaps start budgeting them into my...budget.

---

Does he have that much of a fan base that he's still a golden child? Is this like the lunacy that was Liefeld?

I hope there weren't vast throngs of teenagers engaging in self-abuse with the aid of Liefeld's drawings. Which is the only explanation I can come up with for Land's popularity.

---

Reading "Watchmen" for the first time. My impressions are kind of scattered....I'd read Powers and Transmetropolitan many years before this and I know they were both influenced by WM, but I can't get those titles out of my head when I'm reading this. It's really cutting to the core of the costumed vigilate/superhero ethos, isn't it? What are ya'll's thoughts on the book?

---

Watchmen was my life changing comic. It's also my dream movie project and I am crossing my fingers that Zach Snyder can pull it off. I've been casting this one in my head ever since I first read the comic back in college.

---

I can see where "Watchmen" might be a hard book to come to in the wake of all that's come after it. And indeed, the Cold War angles feel a bit outdated 20 odd years later.

But I do love "Watchmen." Partly because it broke open so many doors, but also because it's got so many classic bits. And because of Rhorsach.

---

It's really cutting to the core of the costumed vigilate/superhero ethos, isn't it?

It was one of the first comics I read, so the things about it that are groundbreaking are things that I was (and mostly still am) blissfully unaware of. I admire it immensely, but I don't really like it. I don't dislike it, either, but... I think when I pick it up now I wind up going, "Ah yes, it's quite clever what he's doing here" not, "Wow, this is an entertaining read!"

Plus, I'd seen that Outer Limits episode, so even on the first read I was going, "Oh... Seriously?" And then I have one Citizen-Kane-esque problem with the actual plot.

---

Yes I think the big challenge with bringing Watchmen to the big screen today is that we already know that a terrible deadly tragedy striking NYC did not help to unify the nation. If anything it polarized us even more. If I was screenwriting I might consider rewriting the entire ending, maybe Rorschach and Nightowl could stop Veidt's plan. (White font spoils the whole damn book so don't read it if you haven't read the book!)

---

Hmmm, I don't know if your premise in whitefont holds, Laga. I'd say 9/11 did unite the country. It was Bush's response to it that divided people.

As for Watchman, I admire it more than I love it. And I love a lot of Moore's work. I'd been following him since Miracleman was Marvelman, and his entire run on Swamp Thing completely changed comics. (There wouldn't be Vertigo without it. Gaiman followed very carefully in his footsteps until he established his own voice).

Moore is an interesting writer. He gets the iconic value of characters better than anybody. He got Superman like nobody did. It's important to remember that Watchman started when DC picked up the minor superhero characters from Charlton and asked Moore to do something cool with them. But when they saw his approach they decided their property couldn't be used that way. But he was again using an established characters and continuity in a very rich way.

---