watchmen reviewed in Slate

"No adult has time for aesthetic 'difficulty'..." Christ, way to reach for the stars, Tom Shone. No wonder your reviews are rubbish.

His first point (Watchmen = downer = therefore not jubilant masterpiece) seems to conflate the reaction that we get from a work of art and the work's aesthetic quality. It's like going to see King Lear or Bergman and saying, "That work had no vitality because I feel sucky!"

His last paragraph just seems mysteriously anti-art, no?

Way to not give the guy any credit for having a mind of his own. And also to make up words ("metronymic").

Dave Gibbons is allegedly a lovely man, although I've never spoken to him so it's hard to feel offended apart from a general offense at bad journalism. Gibbons saw my Rogue Trooper minicomic once and apparently didn't like it. BUT THAT'S MORE THAN TOM SHONE EVER DID.

Mysteriously? More like militantly.

"The last time I looked, the only ones reading Ulysses and quoting Nietzsche were teenagers. No adult has time for aesthetic "difficulty" or "self-consciousness." Life is too short. Frankly, we'd much rather be watching The Incredibles."

though a) The Incredibles was ace, and b) the nietzsche quoting is a little embarassing. i bet moore isn't so proud of it either.

Last time I looked teenagers CAN'T READ AT ALL. ha ha ha.

Yes, that's right. Watchmen is not only the first, but the only comic in 70 years of history to consider what super heroes would be like if they were real people.

1. Les Incroyables
1a. Monsters Inc.
1b. Finding Nemo
2. Toy Story 2
3. Toy Story

I haven't see A Bug's Life.

(Or the Fantastic Four movie, for that matter.)

Okay, maybe it didn't ACTUALLY quote Nietzche, maybe Seigel and Shuster never even read read Nietzche (who knows? maybe they did!), but certainly they were aware of his ideas in some ephemaral sense.

Two points:
** Attacking Gibbons a bit below the belt. He's the perfect artist for this.
** Isn't Ozymandias supposed to be a bit of a pretentious nerk, anyway?

Having said that, it's a reasonable well-written review, and makes a few decent points.

This review is just bunk - slapdash and ill-informed. I bet he did the research via Google. He can name a couple of Dredd artists because he grew up in Britain in the 70s/80s and hence read 2000AD, but his lack of knowledge of the Superhero genre that Watchmen deconstructs is obvious. And the contrarian streak remains - Watchmen? Nah, I like the Incredibles better. Surely not the point of a review? Why not just write a piece praising the Incredibles?

And the Incredibles feels strangely un-Pixar to me. Perhaps because Brad Bird has such a strong sensibility as a director. It seems far less driven by the classic, mythic story-structures of Pixars other films. Plus it is about pop-culture in a way none of the others are. And while it may not be better than the mighty Toy Story movies, its far better than Monsters Inc or A Bugs Life for me.

x-post before the x-post: It's an OK book report, but it sort of ignores the fact that superhero comics had been getting unsufferably pretentious and self-critical long before Moore even started writing them! (x-post: Lack of knowledge-- exactly.)

now andrew farrell doesn't like me!

I was dissapointed with The Incredibles, mostly 'cause the jokes weren't quite as tight and witty as I'd liked; 'cause the Bond pastiche stuff clashed with the FF pastiche stuff; Jason Lee = rubbish baddie; confused central metaphor; being an overextended Russ Abbott sketch; triumph of design over content; and mostly, dissapointment that it wasn't a patch on The Iron Giant. Apart from that, I quite enjoyed it.

Actually, the article seems to be making a slightly more controversial point: comics are *better* as dumb little things for kids. He sez, the problem with Watchmen isn't that it's a smart book for grown-ups but because, by being difficult, it edges out of the kids territory, but being a comic (and being from the eighties, being deflationary, having pomo poetry, etc.) can't quite make it to adultland. But, he implies that adults would rather watch kids stuff!

I think w/ Moore, usually when I come back to him (and early Morrison), I'm surprised by how much worse stylists they are than I remembered them being.

Plus it has great characters and some cool action scenes. Not as cool as the ones in the Incredibles, though..

British writer Alan Moore's groundbreaking comic book has been reissued in an oversized, recolored hardcover. When first published in 1986, it brought grit and realism to what had been a medium for children. It's a sinister mystery about a vigilante in search of a murderer. The mood is dark, the illustrations striking. It's filled with allusions, Cold War anxieties and superhero archetypes. Warning: not for children, although teens may love it.

mark how do you feel about miracleman?

http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/huston/051211

[ADMIN NOTE: Delinked to save us grief from folks associated w/ a site that links to Alan Keyes' First Amendment essay & approximately 53 books about Terry Schiavo; cut & paste, you lazy punks.]

wtf? I thought we wanted new blood around here.

[winky emoticon jigamathinger]