I picked up the first issue on Thursday, but I haven't had time to review it until now. Obviously you can't judge a 35-issue series by the first installment, but as that is how DC Comics is releasing it, so shall it be reviewed. As I stated on this board a few months ago, "I'll read it so you don't have to". And with all respect to Comicon.com's resident Kentucky Clark Kent (Lawson), my review will not be nearly as snarky as his "OMAC Project" reviews back in 2005. I'm going into this as someone who has wanted more since the first series ended in 1987, but also as someone who hopes this story lives up to the same high standards as the original. So with a guarded optimism, let us begin:

Based on the first issue, the series does not plan on replicating the format of the original series. The original series had each issue be a 32-page installment with no ads on "baxter" paper using a rather garish color process, and the 32 pages being divided between a "graphic novel chapter" taking up the majority of the book (with scattered sequences from a fictitious 1950's pirate comic called "The Black Freighter" dispersed throughout) and an illustrated text piece in the back of the issue. The first issue of the new series is a 32-page installment using the standard paper and coloring process that all of DC's regular comics currently use; there are also ads (on 3 pages only) in the book and instead of a text feature we have a two-page installment of a pirate story called "The Crimson Corsair", which we will discuss in a bit.

Firstly I'd like to start with an outright improvement this issue has over any of the 12 original issues: the coloring. The original series whether by artistic intent or by the process used, too often made everything look like it was colored with neon crayons. Now however Phil Noto enhances the different media used in the illustrations; for example, black-and-white photos, firelit glows, and cityscapes by sunset all look appropriate. Furthermore he does an excellent job in setting the mood for the various scenes while not detracting from the art.

Both said art and story as well are supplied for this issue by Darwyn Cooke; he also provided the standard cover (as opposed to the many limited edition variant covers) as well. Cooke is perhaps best known for his other DC work such as the Catwoman graphic novel "Selina's Big Score", "The Spirit", and of course "The New Frontier". Cutting to the chase: this issue is what you would expect the creator of "New Frontier" would deliver in fleshing out the details of "The Minutemen".

The Minutemen, for those of you unfamiliar, are the original superheroes in the world of the Watchmen. While these costumed crimefighters got their start in the late 1930's and operated throughout World War Two, unlike the majority of superheroes published in comics at the time in the real world none of this team had powers or abilities beyond those of extraordinary humans. Their membership consisted of "Hooded Justice", "Nite Owl", "Silk Spectre", "The Silhouette", "Mothman", "Dollar Bill", "The Comedian" and "Captain Metropolis".

The 26-page introductory story "The Minute of Truth Chapter One: Eight Minutes" is narrated by Nite Owl (Hollis Mason), primarily as lines from his autobiography. The story focuses on vignettes from the eight members' early adventures: a page of Dollar Bill's origins here, a three-page sequence of the proto-Rorschach Hooded Justice there. Little knew information is gleaned about these characters that we didn't already know from the original; the Comedian has a juvenile record and the Silhouette was a refugee from Nazi-occupied Austria. On the other hand, the issue can also be viewed simply as an introduction to the characters to any reader who may be unfamiliar with them; and my optimistic side hopes that in the coming issues we will see both an original plot and an original theme.

Artistically, Cooke definitely deviates from the original, as the series looks like his own work and not at all like the style or structure original series artist Dave Gibbons used. Cooke's retro style serves the retro series that this is very well. Hollis Mason as an old writer, a young police officer, and a newbie masked adventurer is given the emotional weight, the determined awe, and the do-gooder intensity that the age and scene demand. The way Cooke shows different emotions, such as the Comedian tearing into a "dirty egg" or the urgency Silhouette feels in breaking up a child pornography ring, shows the thought he puts into his illustrations. His linework is deceptively simple, evoking cartooning legend Alex Toth more than anyone else.

What is simple though, are the layouts. Aside from the first two pages, Cooke's layouts eschews the complex patterns of the original, moving more towards narrative than subtextuality. As both plotter and penciller, Cooke gets sole credit (or blame if you will) for this, whereas the original layouts had to do both with Gibbons and the original series' writer Alan Moore. However while Moore's story structure and ideas appear (at this point anyway) to be more sophisticated than what Cooke has displayed, the new issue's dialogue is just as good and perhaps a tad more authentic. The veddy English Moore often writes clever dialogue but his "American voice" appears to be forced at times, whereas with Cooke it seems much more natural. Whether it is the banter between Silk Spectre's manager and a police chief or Captain Metropolis's bathtub dictation to his butler, the words genuinely seem to fit the characters, and that is definitely to Cooke's credit.

One thing Moore did in the original which Cooke does not do here is create "clever" transitions between scenes, where the text, dialogue and/or pictures would lead us from one scenario to the next either literally or thematically. If you like that sort of thing, the absence will be missed. However few writers can pull it off as effectively as Moore did, so the fact that Cooke chose the more natural method of simply having one scene end and another begin does not bother me. And while DC has chosen to continue the notion of having a pirate tale intertwined with the main superhero tale, they wisely chose not to have the pirates interrupt the heroes, as the random shift of genres did not serve the original story well.

And since there were only two pages of the pirate story this issue, it is surely too soon to judge what writer Len Wein and artist John Higgins have begun. The wordcrafting by Wein is at least above his usual standards. Wein & Higgins, it should be noted, are the respective editor and colorist of the original series, so their inclusion in this effort is appreciated. While the coloring of the pirate sequence is just as subtle as the lead-in story in comparison to the original series, the colorist credit is not give for this aspect, so it is not known who to credit.

In summary, while the introductory issue lacks the originality and complexity of the original series, the artwork and dialague are just as good and the coloring is better. Here's hoping the next installment is as good or better than this week's!

Well written review, makes me curious to look at the books.

Nice review, but I think you can also take another step back and get a bit more "meta" about how the first issue of MINUTEMEN is nothing but a series of vignettes introducing characters that everybody buying this series is already familiar with. It's a great example of how super-hero comics have so slavishly followed the tone of WATCHMEN while fleeing from its structural example.

Mike

As the first issue is a reintroduction to characters who haven't had a comic appearance in 25 years, I'm willing to give Cooke the benefit of the doubt for this chapter.

Good review. I kind of want to check it out now, just to compare it to the original. I saw another preview, the first 4 pages. It still seems like it pales to Watchmen though.

I liked the original because it had so much going on. Two different genres, straighforward supehero, then an EC pirate story. Then implementing text pieces to make it feel more than just a comic book but a real world you're inhabiting as well as pushing the limits of what you could do with a comic.

Minutemen just seems like it's explaining everything that was in Watchmen. Like why and how the original Nite Owl ended up with a pretty plain approach to writing Under The Hood, rather than something more prosey. Explaining why Mothman went nutty. Moore was showing what superheroes would be like if they were real. Minutemen weren't really in it for the altruistic reasons comic book superheroes do it. Maybe Moore was saying that the notion of dressing up like a comic character and fighting crime would attract the mentally unbalanced, which is where Mothman comes in.

But Cooke seems like he's turning them back into the flawed but heroic type.

This will be on ZCult on Wednesday.

Minutemen ends with the first chapter of a pirate comic.

So yeah, nothing new, just a copy of the original. Not even a switch of the genre on the EC-style tangent story/metaphor? Make it a war comic, air fighters or gothic romance, something that might show the authors are choosing it purposely, not just copying the original.

I think Gerald really touches on a very important point. Every issue of Watchmen seemed so full and rich with text, and other elements, very intense elements, it gave the work such substance. You really felt immersed in the story. Giving you the levels of depth usually only seen in prose novels.

It really highlights the difference between a graphic novel and just a trade paperback collections, redefining the possibilities of the medium, more than any other work to date. Has any other work pushed further, hell have any done as much?

There are sequels to great novels or series written by contemporary authors all the time, but I can't think of a one that has ever been able to establish itself as being as good as any works by the original authors.

I have three on my shelf right now, that I haven't read yet so I could be wrong but I doubt it. I've got The Italian Secretary, an authorized Sherlock Holmes mystery by Caleb Carr. Jeffrey Deaver's Carte Blanche, a James Bond novel, and Spade and Archer, by Joe Gores, a Prequel to The Maltese Falcon. Like the new Watchmen books, I don't expect the new works to be groundbreaking, original or even anything as rich and satisfying as the original. And WatchmenLite has a bigger issue. It can't be original or groundbreaking, despite and probably because it has so many different creators working on it, no single vision other than the ghosts of the original work is guiding it. How can it be anything more than an eclectic anthology, with some successes and failures? My guess is Darwyn Cooke's segment will be pleasant but as a whole it will fail or be ultimately unsatisfying. Like those prose anthologies about fairy tales or vampires, this one just happens to be Watchmen themed, some individual stories might work, or will be at least entertaining, but others won't, they can't as a whole transcend the anthology format to create anything larger, anything unique and special without one unique vision like the original.

Reminds me of Grendel. Compare the original and subsequent sequels like Devil Inside, Devil Tracks, The Incubation Years, with that of the prequel Behold the Devil. The original and sequels touched on different genre's and ideas as well as using different types page design and media to grab the reader.

The prequel Behold the Devil on the otherhand just used the same Sparr-as-narrator device but illustrated the story in a typical straight forward style and didn't add anything to the concept of Grendel except for explaining some things that I felt didn't need explained. Like why Hunter Rose adopted Stacy Palumbo. How Larry being Rose's accomplice escaped justice.

Moore was saying how Watchmen was special because it was a finite story and that's what made it successful as well.

I think it had way more to do with making the medium more than it appeard to be, combined with the novel at the time concept of taking juvenile superhero characters and adding serious and mature elements to them. That concept is now old hat, and yet most mainstream comics don't do much with exploring the medium when telling a story.

I wanted to atleast peak at BW Minutemen, but now I'm even more disappointed after reminiscing on how much more complex Moore's work is. I criticized his habit of taking other peoples characters and indulging in parodying while reminiscing nostaligic but technically he does so much more with comic books than other writers.

After reading the issue where Sophie meets "Bill" Promethea and the world turns more clearer, shown to the reader via Fumetti, and the widescreen issue "Promethea Attacks!", and perfectly capturing the nostalgia of the 50s/60s with Rick Veitch on those retro Supreme tales, I can't go back to conventional comics like Before Watchmen.

Just downloaded and read it. Hahaha!! If anyone was unclear that Darwyn Cooke is an unoriginal and derivative piece of shit, I hope this clears it up for them.

Michael Golden turned to shit a decade or so ago and he provides a (shitty) variant cover.

Phil Noto's coloring is meh. It's better than Higgins' on the original (and on the original version of The Killing Joke) because it's a completely different process.

Even the lettering on this comic sucked.


I liked this quote from co-editor Will Dennis:


I'm wondering what Will Dennis' job was before this, and what it will be in a couple of years when there's no comic book industry left.

I told myself not to read your post, it was just gonna be yet another, everything sucks post. And sure enough. Very tedious.

You're like a little kid who won't leave the room while the grown-ups are trying to talk. We get it, everything you don't like, sucks with no explanation needed or offered. Darwyn Cooke is on your actively-hate-everything-they-do list, right up there with Joss Whedon.

You bring so little to a discussion, yet you bring it to so many of them.

Bitter internet troll, picking fights with everyone on his hate list? Oh wait no, that's your job.

I was thinking night watchman at a warehouse.

All he has to do to get off of it is stop copying from other artists. Tim Sale has to completely learn how to structure a drawing. Michael Golden, I'm not sure if he can undo Renee Winterstaetter.

Oh, wow. I'm guessing you're trying to say that's what my job was? Uh, try again.

And you're not like anything. You simply are the consumer who buys what he's told to buy, no matter what market-wide negative externalities that purchase may have. I could tell simply by looking at Cooke's work that he has no conscience, so it's pointless to criticize him. What I'm criticizing is people like you and Peter who are inexplicably hooked on his cheap crack.



Well, correctness. There is that. And you keep coming back for more of it.

And you're the little bitch whining about "mind-reading" in another thread.

Mike

He has no qualms about lifting material from other artists, is what I mean. Maybe when he's not at the drawing board he helps little old ladies cross the road, I've no idea.

Wow, and here I was thinking people buy things because they enjoy them. It's a whole new, scary world. Good job the comic book industry only has a couple of years left, then we can all go do something we actually like.

The question is why do they enjoy it. Are soft drinks a multi-billion dollar industry? How about tobacco products?

When we support something like this crap, we promulgate the notion that comic books are simply a cannibal network.

There's that term again, "lifting"

The word "lifting" is allen's way of accusing people of something that sounds like copying but is ambiguous enough a term that he doesn't have to prove or defend his accusation.

As opposed to what? Television, where we're going to get a new American version of the new British version of Sherlock Holmes? Music, where one of the most popular genres of the last 30 years was based on repeating riffs from the songs of other musicians? Movies, where just this summer we're seeing a prequel to a film that came out in 1979 and a complete reboot from scratch of a franchise that's only 3 flicks and 10 years old? Books, where everyone from Robert E. Howard to Margaret Mitchell has had other writers exploit their work?

Why should comics be any different?

Mike

I've been following Steven Moffat's reaction to the new American version of Sherlock Holmes. Not unlike Moore's reaction to the Watchmen prequels, except for Moore having created the Watchmen.

Moffat claims it will take away from his version somehow. Despite the several year head start? Did the American versions of Being Human or The Office hurt the Brit versions? Besides anyone who sees the American version first now, wasn't looking for the Brit version anyway.

And besides, it's not an American version of the Steven Moffat version, it's just an American version of Sherlock Holmes. It has similarities, like the source material, a present day setting and characters, but Moffat wasn't the first guy to come up with the idea of a modern take on Holmes adventures. It's been done several times. His show is freaking good, probably one of the best versions of Holmes. But it isn't a new idea to modxernize Holmes, and Moffat doesn't have any more claim on the character than anyone else either.

You're absolutely right. The one storytelling medium(*) that can be executed by one person with a pencil should be dominated by recycled corporate-owned and corporate-controlled properties, just like all the rest.




* Prose requires the reader to imagine their own imagery, generally resulting in multiple interpretations.

Does Cooke's work or does it not feature many elements COPIED FROM the work of Bruce Timm (who in turn takes from Alex Toth and Jack Kirby) and Milton Caniff? Are you saying that Darwyn Cooke is a complete original?

Not this "one creator-one comic" crap again. It would be one thing for a professional to be all twisted up with that sort of aesthetic absolutism. It's 100x worse when it's some deluded fanboy.

Mike

You seem to be making an argument that Cooke's work has obvious influences, but you are using terms that have quite different connotations.

By making statements like you did above...

"I could tell simply by looking at Cooke's work that he has no conscience,"

"He has no qualms about lifting material from other artists,"

"...does it not feature many elements COPIED FROM"

...you are seemingly accusing the guy of more than just being influenced by other artists, you seem to be accusing him of something nefarious, by lifting or copying elements with no conscience from other artists.

Since you aren't offering examples of tracing or even swiping, I assume you are just talking about influence. So I have t ask, do you have a problem with an artist having influences? Are you claiming that any artist influenced by any other artists isn't worthy of respect. What artist's aren't influenced by other artists?

That they can't tone down the more overt elements by the time they reach Cooke's age.



What artists that are as critically lauded as Cooke has been are as overtly "influenced" by other artists as Cooke is?

No, you're absolutely right, Mike. Even one guy sitting alone at his drawing board shouldn't be able to get away from corporate control.

Define "tone down"

Do you mean he should artificially change what he draws like to better distinguish himself from any influences?

How do you know his style isn't just what it is, similar to Timm's, both men having spent so much time in animation.

Not artificially. Move beyond them naturally, rather than continually revisiting them.

I don't disagree with that. Every artist should be continually trying to grow. I wouldn't argue that Cooke's work doesn't have obvious influences, I would just disagree that having obvious influences is necessarily negative, in and of itself, and would disagree with your characterization of Darwynn Cooke as "lifting" or "copying elements" with "no conscience from other artists."

Who are you arguing with? 'Cause it sure ain't me.

Mike

Cut the guy some slack, all he does is argue with people, it must be hard to keep it all straight, and not run together now and again.

Not arguing at all, Mike. Total agreeance. Corporate control all the way.

Good.



And coming from an artist, that's sad.

Seriously, you can't help yourself can you. You can't just respectfully disagree with someone?

Even when arguing with yourself, you still can't keep things straight.

Mike

No, Joe is right. If an artists influences are obvious to the viewer, sometimes that just means the viewer has been exposed to a variety of artists works. Just like the well read person will be more easily able to see the influences of the authors in the books they're reading.

Patrick Nagel has a very distinct style, and yet it's obvious that he was inspired by the Art Deco look of the 20s and Japanese wood cuts.


If I read only comic books I would still be in awe of the way Alan Moore crafts his stories. But I read Alan Moore's Mr. Majestic story, "The Big Chill" and realized it was pretty much Isaac Asimov's short story "The Last Question" using DC analogues.

Grant Morrison pointed out the obvious influences in Moore's Watchmen and Miracleman because he read "Superfolks." Doesn't make Alan Moore a hack.

And sometimes (this being one of those sometimes) it means that the artist has chosen to emulate a very narrow list of other artists' works.



In the particular instance of Alan Moore refusing to cite Superfolks as an influence on What Ever Happened to the Man of Tomorrow, yes, it does.

Okay, but you were saying that it's sad when an artist says having obvious influences isn't necessarily a bad thing.




So the following stories are bad because if you read Superfolks, you can easily see the influence of that in Miracelman and in "Whatever Happened...", you can easily see the influence of Stee Ditko's the Question in Rorshach, the lifted scene from Mad Max, the influence of Asimov in "The Big Chill," the influence of Eisner in "Grey Shirt," the influence of Doc Savage and Superman in "Tom Strong," and so on.

It's sad when one artist praises another whose entire bag of chops were taken from a very short list of other artists.



I doubt Moore disregards those influences, as he does Superfolks on WEHttMoT.

Yet somehow Alex Toth and Doug Wildey managed to have very different styles.

I like Phil Noto's coloring here, but Higgins' color in Watchmen was purposefully different from the other comics of the day. For one thing, it leaned heavily on greens, purples, and oranges rather than the primary colors of usual superhero books. For another thing, rather than use set colors for the costumes, Higgins varied them from panel to panel and scene to scene based on the lighting and other contextual considerations.

The coloring in Watchmen was a shock at the time, and today it still can be hard to take. But it serves an artistic purpose, and I wouldn't say that the color in the new series is better or worse, just different.

And wasn't the ending of Watchmen lifted from an Outer Limits episode, "The Architects of Fear," by allen's logic Mr. Moore didn't do enough to tone down the obvious "lift."

Miss Piggy's rule of thumb when determining how big a bag of chops to buy- Never eat more than you can lift. Yet another dispiriting sign of the corporate controlled cannibal network that surrounds us.

I blame Darwyn Cookie Monster.

What's sad is that your arguments always follow the same pattern.

You dismiss solid arguments as exceptions, while allowing the opposition no exceptions, you often make subtle changes to your arguments, softening your terms over time, to make the arguments more defensible. And when faced with honest differences of opinions, instead of agreeing to disagree, you take pot shots at people. That's sad.

You seem to be making the argument that any obvious influence is not just a failure of the artist but is copying elements with no conscience from other artists. "Lifting" as you seem to like to call it. You draw a pretty solid line, no obvious influences!

I don't draw the line there.

No artist lives in a vacuum, no artist is without influence and Gerald is absolutely right, the obviousness of an influence is subjective.

Debating the line that separates what is merely an artist being influenced versus one being derivative, that is the real discussion. But sadly for you, it's a subjective one. And for most people therein lies the the fun of the discussion.

Allen isn't an artist, so he's just looking for something to bitch about in others who are. It's pretty much what he does when the discussion turns to people who, unlike him, are actually creative.

Mike

What the fuck are you talking about? He made reference to The Outer Limits and that specific episode right in the comic. When asked point blank in an interview if he based WEHttMoT on Superfolks, Moore denied it.

If you're going to try and slag me, at least try to make it make sense.

Examples.



Nope. I change the erroneous bits you make up and insert.



There's no "agreeing to disagree" when you are WRONG.



The occasional "homage" only covers so much. When that copied element (or batch of copied elements) is the artist's very appeal, yes, that's lifting.



Point out my influences. Please.



Good thing I never said that, then.



No, I think Darwyn Cooke's influences are pretty objectively obvious.

I'm not? Huh. Well, that'll save me a lot of time at the drawing board and easel, I suppose.

I put a chain link fence in my back yard, but that doesn't make me a landscaper.

I installed a new side panel in my basement shower, but that doesn't make me a contractor.

I mow my lawn, but that doesn't make me a gardner.

Likewise, you may scribble at a drawing board or smudge up an easel, but that doesn't make you an artist in the context of this discussion.

Mike

Did Van Gogh have to make a living off of his art to be an artist?

You are willfully ignorant of the definitions of words. Again.

Van Gogh = Allen Montgomery?

Mike

Put some of your "art" up and let's all see how it compares to those you criticize.

Mike

Artist = paycheck?

First off, I already have, you ignorant twat. Second, even if I couldn't draw a stick figure, that wouldn't change the fact that Darwyn Cooke is an unoriginal and derivative piece of shit.

1. Put it in this thread so people can compare your arrogant judgment with the quality of your own work.

2. "unoriginal and derivative piece of shit" is not criticism. It's insult.

Mike

If anyone can validly call themselves an artist, then the word can have no real meaning. What? Are standards only for everyone else?

Mike

So you're both ignorant AND lazy.



"Piece of shit" is an insult. "Unoriginal and derivative" is a criticism. These are words with meanings and implications, so I understand why you're having trouble.

Answer Reece's question: Was Van Gogh an artist? Yes or no.

Oh, Allen. You're actually starting to make me feel sorry for you. If you were actually so deluded as to think you're as good or better than Cooke, that would have been kind of harmless and even cute. We all let our egos run away with us, after all.

Your hesitancy to post your own "art" when asked, however, indicates that you actually know you're not as good as Cooke. Which just makes everything you've posted in this thread so very, very, very pathetic.

Mike

Adding adjectives to an insult doesn't change it from being an insult. You might want to go back and try and get your GED again, Allen, 'cause you should at least be fluent in your native tongue.

Mike

Please point to where I've ever made that assertion.



I already have posted my artwork on this board. You're just too ignorant and lazy to find it. Not that it has any bearing on this thread.

Remind us how many fan reviews you've posted IMDB? Now remind us how many movies you've made?

You may wish to learn that questions elicit answers: Van Gogh, artist or no?

1. So, you don't think you're as good an artist as an "unorignal and derivative piece of shit"? Wow, you must really suck. No wonder you're afraid to post your "art" in this thread.

2. What real artist every turns down an opportunity to show people his work? When's the last time you think anyone even bothered to look at that other thread?

The longer this thread goes, the closer I come to feeling sorry for you.

Mike

Are you comparing yourself to Van Gogh? If not, how does his status as an artist have anything to do with you or this discussion? I'm pretty sure Reece got my meaning right away. Next time you might want to check with him before responding so you don't reveal the depths of your stupidity.

Mike

Please point to where I ever said that, either. I have only ever compared myself to one [allegedly] professional artist on this board, and it wasn't Darwyn Cooke.



Jeffrey Hammond. Bill Watterson. That's just off the top of my head.

Because of your erroneous assertion that only those who do it for a living are entitled to the "artist" descriptor.



I'm pretty sure he did as well. Which is why he brought up Van Gogh to challenge your erroneous assertion.


Now remind us again how many fan reviews you've put on IMDB. Then remind us how many movies you've made.

Because he didn't, and you're the only one pretending he did.

I don't want to get into the middle of you and Allen, but I do think that anyone who creates art is an artist,* and can reasonably call themselves that. This doesn't entail anything about quality or evaluation (I prefer Cooke's art to Allen's, for example). Likewise, I'd call you a writer and a critic, even if you're not paid a cent for it (something that's getting harder to do these days).


*I should've added: "with an aesthetic goal of creating art of some kind." I wouldn't call just anyone drawing doodles on a magazine cover an artist. Nor would tweeting "you suck" make one a critic.

The archives of The Comics Journal are now available online for you to correct yourself.

I do, too, but that's because a big chunk of Cooke's art is actually Milton Caniff's.

Like Charles, I'm of a 'let's you and him fight' frame of mind, however I have to say that Allen has some pretty decent artistic chops. In fact, this morning when I read the original comment questioning this particular ability of his, I went to retrieve a couple of his works from the Sketch-a-Day thread in Creating Comics. They're gone, kaput, raptured! What happened?

I changed ISP's in January and my personal web space where those images were hosted is now invalid.

I don't want to confuse ComiCon history with Julius Caesar's classic accounts of the Gallic Wars or anything, but that's too bad, there was some good stuff in there. I especially liked the portrait of the female singer in an art nouveau, steampunk style.

And there's another of those ambiguous accusations.

Again, this allen's way of accusing people of something that sounds like copying, but is ambiguous enough that he doesn't have to prove or defend his accusations.

Why not set up a Deviant Art site like Hunter did, a basic page is free, and there a wide variety artists of varying talent and experience.

If you are nervous about criticism, you can turn off the comments. But if you are open to it you might get helpful pointers.

I'm not trying to slag you you paranoid hayseed. If I'm wrong here I'm just misinformed. Wikipedia cites two articles, one from Wizard and one from Entertainment Weekly, and goes on to say, Moore claimed he ran across a guide to cult tv that featured "The Architects of Fear" episode, but it was after he wrote the ending, (a likely story!), and then quotes Len Wein saying "it simply stole the ending to an episode of 'The Outer Limits,' which Alan fully admitted!"

It's hard to believe he just ran across a show description with the same plot device. But even then, at the very least, Moore's addition of the reference is tacked on, if he didn't know of the similarity until finding the guide. And just making reference to the episode doesn't make it any less "lifting" the episodes plot to use as the ending in Watchmen. It doesn't make it an homage either.

Nothing ambiguous about it. Cooke copies from Timm and Caniff. I can't recall reading any interviews with him, but unless he's a total sleazebag(*) I'd be willing to bet he'd even admit it.




* like Erik Larsen.

Yes, and Gibbons claims to have inadvertantly chosen to include The Grateful Dead's Axoamaoxa without realizing the theme of that issue was mirror images. In Moore's case, he probably saw the Outer Limits one night while he was stoned out of his mind.

So when Moore is influenced by something or, lets say caught "LIFTING" an entire plot from the Outer Limits episode "Architects of Fear," it's merely an innocent coincidence.

BUT, when the work of artists like Darwyn Cooke and Erik Larsen show signs they are probably heavily influenced by some great artists, like Alex Toth or Milton Caniff, they are, in your opinion, sleazebags copying elements with no conscience from other artists.

That's what allen's saying right?

allen, I noticed you didn't answer the above question, does that mean you are busily preparing your new DA page?

Allen's saying something again? I hadn't noticed.

Still waiting for an example of Allen's artwork, so it can be judged against the efforts of an "unoriginal and derivative piece of shit".

Mike

I, on the other hand, would not classify myself as a critic and probably not even a reviewer. I'm just some dude who writes reviews. The stuff you do is certainly closer to actual criticsm than my work. And if I ever refer to myself as a writer, it would not be because of my hobby. It would be because of my news job.

And of course, I'm just needling Allen because his views on this sort of stuff are not only asinine, but ridicuously arbitrary and absolute for someone who's nothing but a fanboy.

Mike

Have you seen that episode? If not, WalMart has the DVD set of season two for like ten bucks.

The plot similarities are from the first few minutes of the show in a boardroom discussion and that's the end of the resemblance. The rest of it is bad melodrama about Robert Culp's fiancee not knowing/understanding what's going on, Culp with no shirt and then some soldiers chasing Culp (I guess that was him) while he's wearing a stupid papier mache mask. There was no giant telepathic squid teleported into New York City.

The even more basic underlying idea Watchmen and Architects share is the concept of a false flag (look it up), which is as old as organized warfare. Which you might know if you read Sun Tzu.

I didn't see a question mark, so I didn't realize it was a question that needed answering.




Nope.

Still waiting for an explanation as to how a demonstration of my artistic abilities, or lack thereof, would in any way change the fact that Darwyn Cooke overtly emulates the work of Bruce Timm and Milt Caniff.

Wait, now it's just "Overtly emulates?"

Ladies and gentlemen, we've reached the point in the argument where allen begins to soften his terms to appear more reasonable.

We've gone from sleazebags copying elements with no conscience from other artists, to now merely overtly emulating.

Some might argue "overtly emulates," is much closer in meaning to the term "obvious influences" which several of us, myself included have used to describe Cooke's work. Closer in meaning than allen's original argumentative sleazebag, copier, with no conscience crap, to be sure.

"Overtly emulates," is a perfectly reasonable statement, one that some probably would have agreed with, certainly more defensible than and nothing like, sleazebag, copier, with no conscience.

When you call an established and widely well-regarded professional artist someone who "overtly emulates" the work of others, it doesn't really matter what your background is.

When you call them a "piece of shit" and other various smears, it becomes perfectly legitimate to call your own qualifications, or lack thereof, into question. For example, there's a big difference between, say Dave Gibbons calling Cooke a "piece of shit" for being overtly emulative and the same character assassination coming from a nobody like you.

And you keep inching me closer to feeling sorry for you, Allen, because you obviously don't think too highly of your own "art" to be so fearful of letting people see it.

Mike

I like Darwyn Cooke's art. I wish he was working on something different though.

And just to shortcut any more of Allen's excuses...



You used your own artwork to defend your insults of Cooke. Let's see it.

Mike

I was merely broadening the terminology to fit a more concise sentence. But if you want more to read:

Please explain how a demonstration of my artistic abilities (or lack thereof) with posting something in this thread or by setting up a DeviantArt page would in any way negate the fact that Darwyn Cooke steals formal construction elements from Bruce Timm (stolen in turn from Alex Toth and Jack Kirby) and copies inking techniques from Milton Caniff.



Then by all means feel free to not reply.

That's a bit of stretch.


The monkey doesn't tell the organ grinder to dance.

I don't feel like going to look for it (thus giving you time to scrub it), but I do seem to recall some instances of you in your IMDB fan reviews telling moviemakers to "go to hell" and such. So I ask again: Please remind us of how many movies you've made?

No one is asking that question. Nice straw man though, good try.

You were attempting to make the argument that any obvious influence is not just a failure of the artist but is copying elements with no conscience from other artists.

When pressed that you draw a pretty solid line, no obvious influences, I stated "no artist is without influence," you yourself offered your work up for review when you responded by asking...

How can we do that if you don't show us your stuff???

I only offered the DA page as an option for you when you complained about the place you had previously used...
I recommended a Deviant Art site because its free, and easy to use plus, you wouldn't be out of place, there is a wide variety artists of varying talent and experience. Lots of beginners. And you might benefit from some peer criticism, maybe even get some helpful pointers.

Actually that's that's the most reasonable thing I've seen you post.

No. "Overtly emulating" is not a broader term that could ever even be confused as meaning the same as, sleazebags copying elements with no conscience from other artists.

"Overtly emulating" is closer to "obvious influences" like I've been saying. Thanks for agreeing with me. Certainly much much closer than it is to what you've been arguing, that artists like Cooke are, sleazebags copying elements with no conscience from other artists.

Yes, pointing to an instance of you specifically referring to your own "art" to defend your insults of Cooke is certainly a stretch.

Mike

A bit of stretch?



Seriously. Post your stuff somewhere, and we'll invite Mr. Cooke and Mr. Larsen, and anyone else you'd like, to come critique your work.

Fair enough?

You're free to post or link to any review of mine you want and people can judge for themselves if my criticism is too harsh or unfounded. You see, unlike you, my self-worth isn't so wrapped up in my hobby that I'm afaid to let people see it.

Mike

Oh come on Mike, I'm sure allen isn't afraid. They don't let braggarts and cowards into the military.

I'm sure allen will step up. He wouldn't put his own work up their as an example, then refuse to back up his own words. He's probably busy getting his work together.

HEY LAWSON!!!! You know Erik Larsen right, bought him a drink or something, can you get an invite to him to critique allen's new online portfolio, not yet but when he gets it up?

You guys know Allen has posted a bunch of his work on this site, right?

In fact Joe, you personally have participated in several such threads. Here's one from two short months ago.

Hmm. I think I see why he wants to avoid putting any of it in this thread.

Mike

You've seen it. If you can't recall what you saw, I would recommend Ginseng supplements.



I didn't complain. I merely stated a fact.



Their layout is gaudy and spam-ridden. Besides which, much like one of my [lesser] objections to Facebook, I do not appreciate being the commodity which allows their service to be "free."

Why would I value the opinions of people who clearly have no aesthetic conscience?

Indeed.

Another stretch.

Yeah, their behavior is quite baffling.

Predictable troll is predictable.

This is the thread where you've attacked Cooke. This is the thread where you've used your own artwork to justify that attack. At least putting a link so people reading this thread can see your art is pretty standard for the internet, even for jackasses like you.

Mike

No, this is the thread where I point up the poor quality of Cooke's participation in the attack on Alan Moore.



Not in any way, shape or form is that assertion even remotely true.

Allen, your art isn't awful by amateur standards. It doesn't look like something from a 6 year old with a crayon. If some young kid took it to a convention for an evaluation, the pro probably wouldn't laugh in his face.

But by professional artist standards? Real artist standards? Compared to the efforts of Cooke? Your art is fairly poor. I can see why you felt confident in boasting that no one can see any artistic influences in your work. Your technique is too crude to show any influences. Even that Byrne-clone who did Freak Force 20 years ago for Image was a superior artist to you because even such a slavish imitation required far more talent and skill than your work shows.

And yes, I'm just ignoring the irony overload of Allen calling anyone else a predictable troll.

Mike

Can I get a ruling here? Does anyone think Allen calling Cooke a "piece of shit" does not qualify as an attack? Does anyone think he's being at all reasonable in pretending that he didn't refer to the nature of his own art to justify his attack? Anyone? Bueller?

Mike

Even I have explicitly said that is an intentional insult.



Please point to where I have ever compared my work to Cooke's.

What was the purpose of YOU bringing up YOUR artwork in this thread if there was not some connection to your adolescent ragging on Cooke? Especially since you obviously aren't all that proud of it in the first place.

Mike

You forgot that he demands the person he's arguing with provide nonexistent evidence - artwork he won't show, a screenplay that's not written - to prove him wrong even though he never provides the slightest evidence that he's right.

Too bad (for you) that Larsen admitted to copying Byrne.

Why do you think we should value the unwarranted insults and self-contradictory opinions of a mean-spirited, rude troll like yourself?

Unwarranted. No.

Insults. Yes.

Self-contradictory. No.

Opinions. Yes.

Mean-spirited. Perhaps.

Rude. Certainly.

Troll. Only by your arbitrary made-up definition.

Taking personal shots at artists, name calling, using derogatory terms including "sleazebag" and "piece of shit" when refering to the artists, is rude, childish and unwarranted in a discussion about art.

Rude. Certainly.

Childish. Children don't use such language.

Unwarranted. Again, no. Cooke is the prime example of an opportunist. The critical praise for his unoriginal and derivative garbage is what's unwarranted.

What planet are you from?

At the risk of being one of those jerks who wanders into a thread late and then declares himself to be uninterested in the subject -- that's me.

Regardless of how you feel about Alan Moore, BEFORE WATCHMEN is a waste of resources that should have been invested in something new and different. This may be the most naked grab for cash by one of the Big Two publishers so far; and as such, it's a discouraging herald of what's coming.

I assume that, by the end of 2013, the Watchmen characters will be fully enrolled in the DC Universe, with Batman and Rorschach team-ups and Dr. Manhattan joining the JLA.

Ideally I would hope that sometime between now and "Before Sandman" or whatever someone at DC glances over a book shelf with copies of Why I Hate Saturn, Watchmen, Sandman, 100%, Y, We3, Preacher, etc. and has the thought, "Hey! We've published some fucking cool original comics over the years. Why don't we just give up on the reboots and prequels and just try focusing on doing more of that."

Hey, it could happen.

DC has made decent money on original comics and graphic novels, particularly in the bookstore market. WATCHMEN, WE3, SANDMAN, Y: THE LAST MAN, FABLES, SLEEPER, PREACHER and others.

Unfortunately, rather than publishing more original work, it seems simpler to milk the existing winners for as much as as possible. The DC that took a gamble on WATCHMEN in the 1980s (and RONIN and other weird projects) no longer exists.

BEFORE DARK KNIGHT STRIKES BACK?

Gah!

The DARK KNIGHT sequel is a great example of why these old classics should be left alone. And in that case, it was the original writer/artist who came back and wrecked everything!

Bill Finger and Bob Kane wrote "Dark Knight Strikes Back"???

Heh!

No, those are Batman's creators. The original writer/artist of DARK KNIGHT is Frank Miller.

As you know.

Wise-ass.

I think DKSA is an argument against Before Watchmen but probably not in the same way. I like the first issue of DKSA where Miller seemed to be putting forward the notion that super heroes are larger than life figures who by their nature challenge the status quo and that when you try to make them respectable or smooth out the rough edges they fall victim to the very forces they are intended to challenge. But I wasn't crazy about the direction he took that idea in and the story itself just seemed to fall apart as it progressed. All Star Superman at times almost felt like a counterpoint to DKSA. That's why I'd rather have the creators just make their own versions of the characters or take what is in the public domain for their own works than see something like Before Watchmen. I'm more interested in the creator than the character franchise and the continuity is the weakest aspect to me.

I didn't like much of anything about the DARK KNIGHT sequel. It felt like Miller doing a bad parody of Miller. But you're right, it really went off the rails as the mini-series progressed.

If I remember correctly, the 9/11 attacks happened in the middle of it -- and Miller took a few months off, putting the project on hold halfway through, to recast it as an angry 9/11 response. This is how we get Metropolis getting nuked and a weepy Superman pawing through the rubble for survivors.