Tema: Watchmen (Damon Lindelof, 2019)

Iniciado por Jepo

y que ha opinado el CO-creador de Watchmen,
Sir Dave Gibons ?
(el título se lo adjudico yo que su reina es un poco lenta),
pues que estaba ilusionado
y que le gustaba mucho
el personaje de Sister Night

nos.ha jodido, al renunciar Moore a sus royalties por esta y similares truños que fusilan sus obras, el Sr. Gibbons se está hinchando a ganar pasta. Poderoso caballero es Don dinero...

Yo de mayor quiero vivir en una atalaya de superioridad y certeza.

Se tiene que estar tan tranquilo...

Iniciado por tatoadsl

Un par de cosas:

Esta secuela, reimaginación, interpretación, como quieras llamarlo de Watchmen está hecha con el permiso de Moore, pero no con su aprobación que es muy distinto. En el momento que vendió los derechos de la obra se hace con su permiso. Otra cosa es que el esté de acuerdo con lo que se hace y lo que no, y eso se ve en infinidad de adaptaciones de obras literarias, aceptó que se adaptara al vender los derechos, que le guste el resultado o no es ya otra cosa totalmente distinta.

Alan Moore nunca vendió los derechos de Watchmen.

Iniciado por Roy Batty

Yo de mayor quiero vivir en una atalaya de superioridad y certeza.

Se tiene que estar tan tranquilo...

en los tiempos que corren, no es complicado. si ya tienes buena base, basta con leer un poco. ya estarás por encima de la media. prueba con Jerusalem.

Iniciado por Harry Block

prueba con Jerusalem.

Mira que ponerle un cartoncito porque la caja les quedó demasiado grande...

Iniciado por Harry Block

en los tiempos que corren, no es complicado. si ya tienes buena base, basta con leer un poco. ya estarás por encima de la media. prueba con Jerusalem.

Cuánto me queda por aprender de mis mejores.

Iniciado por Roy Batty

Cuánto me queda por aprender de mis mejores.

Pues espabila, que el tiempo vuela y...



Just kidding, eh ;)

Iniciado por J.S.

Mira que ponerle un cartoncito porque la caja les quedó demasiado grande...

lo leí cuando salió en inglés, no tenía cartoncito.

Iniciado por J.S.

Alan Moore nunca vendió los derechos de Watchmen.

Entonces lo que están haciendo Warner y Paramount es una adaptación ilegal.

Y si a lo que te refieres es que renunció a los derechos y a la autoría de la obra entonces mejor me lo pones: de desentendió de su obra y los demás pueden hacer con ella "lo que les de la gana".

según el contrato que firmó Moore, los derechos volverían a él en el momento que la obra dejara de estar en publicación por parte de DC. mientras tanto serían de la editorial. error garrafal, entendible en una época en que apenas existian tomos recopilarorios o reediciones de comicbooks, y sin saber el éxito total y sin precedentes que Watchmen tendría. evidentemente desde su primer número DC no ha dejado de editarla, con lo que los derechos no han vuelto a Moore. al menos rechaza cualquier tipo de royalties generados por adaptaciones de su obra, con lo cual van todos al dibujante, y su nombre no aparece en los créditos.
Alan Moore es uno de los pocos escritores o artistas que no se vende al dinero de Hollywood y que defiende su integridad e independencia artística. Y la verdad es que no hay una sola adaptación de su obra que merezca la pena ver..

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ed_Brubaker

SPURGEON: There's been a lot of attention paid to Marvel's deals with various creators, and whether or not these are ethical. Do you have a perspective you want to share, as someone who's in there working on these kinds of characters? Do these issues matter to you?

BRUBAKER: They do matter to me. I also worked at DC for a long time on characters that were probably co-created by Bill Finger without him getting anything for them. You know when you work on these company-owned characters that there's a history there, a lot of it ugly and unfair to the creators. So you go in eyes wide open to that past. And that's the problem, poor treatment of creators, that's supposed to be the past, not the present.

And now with Before Watchmen you're seeing people weighing in on Alan Moore, saying he's a hypocrite. "He's mad about this, but he used to work on Swamp Thing or Superman." But if you actually read interviews with Alan Moore, he'll talk about the fact that the more work he did on that stuff, the harder a time he had with doing it. So obviously, his views evolved through his personal experience, as views tend to do.

But apparently there's some kind of moral absolutism where he's now not allowed to have an opinion. But I mean, murderers can still think murder is bad. Not really an apt comparison, I know. [laughter] But I remember I said something on Twitter -- something sort of snarky about Before Watchmen. Someone said, "Well, you're hardly in a position to judge, since you're living on Jack Kirby's stolen properties." [Spurgeon laughs] So apparently I don't get an opinion, either.

SPURGEON: Now, as I understand it, you see the Moore stuff differently because of his outright objection to exactly what is being done, in addition to how the deal was set up.

BRUBAKER: Yeah. To me, there's a difference between working on something like Watchmen, and creating characters for a company that you know are going to be owned by that company going forward. I don't recall a time when Jack Kirby was standing there saying, "They promised me I'd own The Avengers; nobody should be doing this."

What I remember, from when I was becoming aware of this stuff in the '80s, is that Jack wanted his art back and he wanted a percent of the money generated from his creations. I don't recall Jack Kirby ever suggesting that someone shouldn't do Captain America. And I can't recall Marvel Comics ever holding up the Avengers as a victory for creator's rights like DC did with Watchmen.

So I think there's a clear distinction between the Jack Kirby thing and the Alan Moore thing. And I want to be very clear, I'm not trying to diminish Jack Kirby's contributions to Marvel Comics, which are immense, or say that he shouldn't have gotten more for his creations and co-creations, because I think he should have. But I don't think the situation is the same as what's going on with Watchmen.

At the same time, I've always felt good about the fact that the credits for Captain America say, "created by Simon and Kirby" and that Marvel had settled with Simon and Kirby -- not Kirby himself, but Kirby's heirs -- over Cap. So they are getting something from the Avengers movie, because of that. But the other stuff is all tied up in that huge lawsuit, so Marvel can't even publicly discuss any of these issues.

SPURGEON: Were you surprised with the Moore part of the situation, not so much that some people had principled reactions to what Moore might or might not want with these books but that there was a reaction on the level of "Screw that guy"? Because that kind of reaction surprised me. I get some of the arguments against what Moore is claiming; I may not agree with them, but I get them. The summary dismissal, though, I found dismaying. Were you surprised at all by the violence of the reaction?

BRUBAKER: Yeah, completely. Partly because even four or five years ago, Alan Moore was revered in comics, regardless of any fights he had with publishers or fallings out he'd had. He's been nominated for more awards than anyone in the history of the medium, I think. And then he gives a few cranky interviews about the mainstream comics market from the point of view of someone who clearly wasn't aware of what was going on in it, and people were suddenly like, "Fuck that guy."

I was surprised by the bloodthirstiness, and I was surprised how much I cared about the issue, too. But the PR that came out... Some of the stuff JMS [J. Michael Straczynski, writer of Before Watchmen: Dr. Manhattan] was saying in preemptive defense of the project... A lot of it made me kind of vomit in my mouth. The way that fans attacked Alan Moore -- "screw him, he signed a shitty contract!" -- and the debates back and forth about how he's done the same things with League Of Extraordinary Gentlemen so he can't complain... which just... that makes no sense. An author always has the right to complain about the treatment of their work. You don't forfeit that when you write an issue of Superman. To see that reaction from the fan base was disheartening. You expect them to be on the side of the creator.

But the thing that really bugged me was when Watchmen was announced it was, coincidentally, that same summer the entire industry rallied around Jack Kirby against Marvel. It was the era of the "Creator's Rights Revolution" and DC really used Watchmen at the time. Part of the PR was that it was creator-owned, that these guys would get this property back. DC used it to position themselves against Marvel as the more creator-friendly company.

I was at the San Diego Comic-Con the year that Alan Moore was there. I saw him talk about Watchmen and what a revolutionary thing it was that they'd gotten this deal for it. Part of it felt like a promise to the industry that things were changing. That this was different. And so while the book never went out of print and they never got their ownership, I always felt that on some level Paul Levitz seemed to respect the spirit of the deal: that they had created this thing and while DC officially owned it, Alan Moore and Dave Gibbons had moral ownership of it, at least.

So to see this happen over the objection of the guy who wrote it, and then to see the responses, "Well, Alan Moore didn't really create those characters anyway; they're just the Charlton characters." Or "He did the same thing with Lost Girls. Would the people who created those characters be happy with the way Alan Moore treated them?" I don't think he was positioning Lost Girls as an official, in-continuity sequel to those author's books, for one, but I think two of them are on the record as saying they don't give a shit what anyone does with their characters. And clearly DC doesn't think the Watchmen characters are just the Charlton heroes, because they copyrighted and trademarked them as totally different characters.

Batman began as The Shadow but he's clearly a different character. Where a character begins doesn't take away from what they end up becoming. Creation is a process. Lots of our favorite things began as some writer doing their take on some idea or character. And you don't know until they tell you -- "yeah, this character is like Punisher crossed with Tigra but with my views on animal rights" -- just like with Watchmen it wasn't until Moore and Gibbons revealed the process, that it had begun as a pitch for the MLJ and then the Charlton heroes, that anyone made the connection.

SPURGEON: There's this assumption that corporations are going to do evil things, and we scramble to find a justification along the lines of what's allowable or arguable. We don't argue best outcomes. We argue what people can do rather than what they should do.

BRUBAKER: Yeah. You're naïve if you want people to do the right thing. "Get over it, man. The Tyrell Corporation makes replicants. That's life."

SPURGEON: Which seems even odder to argue in this case because we've just gone through 25 years of this corporation not doing this.

BRUBAKER: Yeah, it looks especially bad that Watchmen was this special thing they left alone, they let it be a novel, which is what it was.

Really, though, the saddest part for me is the "fuck Alan Moore; he signed a shitty contract" thing. That's really, really sad. When JMS at the Chicago Comicon -- or wherever that was -- said, "Did Alan Moore get a shitty contract? Yes. Jack Kirby got a shitty contract, too." That really, to me, when I was reading that I was like "Holy shit." Siegel's and Shuster's and Kirby's shitty deals are now being used to defend a project as opposed to...

SPURGEON: ... indict a company.

BRUBAKER: Yeah. Usually, that would be the opposite. Are we living in opposite-land now? "So and so got a shitty contract, too, so just get over it." Like I said, the poor treatment of creators by "the Big Two" was supposed to be part of the past. They'd changed their policies to be more creator-friendly, so things like this weren't supposed to happen anymore. And yet here it is, the only time during my entire career where we've seen the writer of a book standing there saying "I don't want this thing to happen." And people are just giving him the finger.

SPURGEON: Do you think the situation with Steve Gerber and the Omega The Unknown property was similar?

BRUBAKER: You're right. He was angry about that. He said Jonathan Lethem had made an enemy for life. Jonathan Lethem called him up and talked to him about it because he didn't know Steve Gerber wanted to do more Omega. They ended up talking amicably, from what I gathered. There wasn't a big controversy over it. But yeah, you're right. Gerber is kind of the outlier of all this stuff.

The thing is, I'm glad JMS said what he did, because while it appalled me at the time, there's an inherent truth to what he said. And it actually sparked a lot of people thinking about these issues more than they were doing. I think they had written it off. "Dave Gibbons is okay with it, and Alan Moore is a cranky old man, so fuck him." Then JMS said that thing, and people started re-examining the whole thing. [laughs]

SPURGEON: Isn't that the hopeful part of this? That this is a stop-and-reconsider moment for a lot of creators and interested fans? Because you couldn't get a conversation going about creators rights a year ago. People thought that all of those issues were taken care of.

BRUBAKER: Yeah. They seemed like settled issues and now suddenly the entire industry is talking about them again.

But that all feels naïve, too. I mean, once you get established in comics, you know to create your own material and not give up ownership to a publisher. I don't know any established pro that isn't currently planning or doing a project they have complete ownership of. That's one of the reasons Sean and I started Criminal at Icon way back when, because we were at a point where we didn't need to give away anything to get it published. So it's not like comics needed this reminder, or like the next Alan Moore was waiting in line to give his next big thing to DC. You know giving away half the ownership and all the control isn't a great deal.

Something that I was thinking about was what DC could have done when the market changed and they realized Watchmen was never going to go out of print? Because they could have altered the deal if they wanted, to be more fair to Dave and Alan. I mean, the book was in profit when the single issues were coming out, so it's not like DC took some huge risk on Watchmen. Alan Moore was their best writer and it was one of their bestselling things. The trade paperback was immediately a perennial best seller. They could have said, "Okay, we've made ten times our initial investment back, so we're going to give you guys 50 percent of profits from now on." They could have said they'd keep it in print and give them control over what happens to it. And who knows, Before Watchmen might have still happened. Because Dave Gibbons signed off on it... He made that one public statement.

SPURGEON: No one can speak to his intention, but that was one bleak endorsement.

BRUBAKER: Well, I don't know how Dave Gibbons feels, but in my own experience, with Sleeper, you kind of get used to the fact that you don't own your work when you realize you've made a bad deal. [laughs] If I'd owned Sleeper, my whole life would be different now. Other opportunities would have opened for me long ago.

But that's all hindsight. It's really easy to look at things and say, "Wow, I should have done this; I should have done that." Whereas in '99 when Scott Dunbier asked me to create a monthly comic for WildStorm, nobody else was asking for me to create something like Sleeper. So it's easy to look back and go, "I wish I had made a different deal."

Still, Dave did give them an okay, and I think if Dave Gibbons were objecting the same way Alan Moore is, it most likely wouldn't exist. At least, I don't think so. Although, I don't know, maybe they wouldn't care? It's hard to imagine, but the whole situation is.

SPURGEON: It's hard to talk about Before Watchmen because it's an absurd thing.

BRUBAKER: It really is. I feel like this is the weirdest, most surreal thing that's happened since I've been in comics professionally.

And I want to be very clear here, too, that I have no ill will toward anybody who's working on this project. I have friends working on this and I don't begrudge any of them doing it. It's a tough industry to make a living in, and it's a pretty scary time to be a professional in this industry. And they don't have to view it the same way I do. They don't have to make a distinction between this and any other company-owned job. And I assume they knew going in that not everyone would view it the same way they do.

But what I can't get beyond is the way DC is sort of rewriting history here, and pretending like they didn't say Watchmen was this great new deal. It was supposed to be the thing that was different than Superman, different than Howard the Duck, and in the end, it wasn't at all.

Quitando la parte de la trama de Veidt, decepción de capítulo. Me han faltado más revoluciones en el último episodio. Sin comentarios la última escena.

en serio dejan el final de la temporada asi? tanto argumento para esto? ufff....

Para mí, de cabeza a la mejor serie del año.
Espero que la dejen así y no la estiren hasta echarla a perder. Una temporada y adiós. El final es perfecto.

Spoiler:

Eso sí, me quedo con la intriga de saber quién es y qué pasa con el tipo del lubricante

Decir que hay demasiados negros en una serie sobre negros es lo último en demencia paranoide.

Iniciado por Dr.Gonzo

Para mí, de cabeza a la mejor serie del año.
Espero que la dejen así y no la estiren hasta echarla a perder. Una temporada y adiós. El final es perfecto.

Spoiler:

Eso sí, me quedo con la intriga de saber quién es y qué pasa con el tipo del lubricante

El del lubricante es Petey, el del FBI que se va con Silk Spectre.

Buen final el 1x09 de #Watchmen . HBO querrá otra temporada de esto. Yo también. Tiene capítulos muy buenos pero se le ven algunas costuras, Lindelof y su equipo no saben crear momentos de acción y recurren a muchos actos de fe por parte del espectador, sobre todo al final. Me ha gustado pero no veo el serión que ven algunos, la veo que quiere gustar a todo tipo de publico, con decisiones musicales populares y eso le pasa factura. Me hubiese gustado mas oscura y a Ozymandias lo convierten en un personaje de chiste, ni el ni Trieu son lo mas inteligentes del mundo xD
El momento emotivo me ha dado igual, lo veo de chichinabo.

7/10

Bastante mejor que The Leftovers.

Me ha gustado mucho la serie en general como ejercicio de imaginar lo que podría haber pasado mucho después de Watchmen , he disfrutado mucho reencontrándome con estos personajes del comic (algo cambiados), me ha encantado el diseño de los nuevos personajes enmascarados y creo que está todo muy bien hilado, sin embargo el final no me ha contentado, algo que es fácil que pase cuando tienes estas expectativas.

Spoiler:

No me termina de convencer que Manhattan acabe muerto, para mi es un ser indestructible, pero bueno no deja de ser una versión libre, pero lo que si que no se es como no se defiende, ni como teletransporta a unos solamente. También me fastidia que el plan de la hija de Veid se vaya al traste por llevar a su hijo a verlo, me acorde de la serie Fargo (también de HBO), cuando la chulería del personaje de Martin Freeman echa por tierra su plan después de que le hubiese salido tan bien. Ese tipo de cosas me fastidian.

¿Alguien echó en falta un epilogo? Que después de nueve capítulos que la cosa termine tan repentinamente no me gustó.

Spoiler:

Me gustaría haber visto a Veid siendo encarcelado, que su plan se hiciese publico y sobre todo eché en falta que saliese el Búho Nocturno saliendo de la cárcel, reencontrándose con Espectro de Seda o lo lo que sea, lo han dejado colgando y creía que iba a hacer aparición.

Fargo no es de HBO, es de FX.

Empezada y tras el primero bien, no sé, bien. Con ganas de más. Destaco a Don Johnson pero es que tengo debilidad por él: es uno de mis actores favoritos y su Sonny Crockett sigue siendo uno de mis 5 personajes favoritos vistos en TV. De hecho me gusta tanto que es uno de esos casos que trato de ver película o serie donde salga.

Esta iba a verla igual porque me gustaba la película y me gusta el cómic (utilizo el pasado con la primera precisamente porque la vi antes de leerme el cómic... Sigue gustándome pero no tanto) y aunque Lindelof se me atraganta (Lost me gustaba por momentos pero esa obvia intencionalidad flipesca no... Y Leftovers casi me mata de aburrimiento) el proyecto tiene buena pinta.

Mola la BSO y de momento pinta bien la adaptación Watchmenistica a 2019.

Watchmen la película es una obra maestra. Y la serie, también. Con la esencia original, las capas de una muñeca rusa y la complejidad y precisión de un reloj suizo. Lindelof sabe respetar la obra pero además darle su toque maestro de WTF y giros locos.

Una maravilla plagada de detalles que seguro que gana aún más reposándola en la cabeza con el tiempo y con futuros revisionados. Tiene incluso demasiada información condensada en tan poco metraje, lo cual es más piropo que defecto. Para los detractores del creador que lo señalan como un "es un pajas mentales que no responde los misterios que plantea" en esta ocasión no tendrán queja. Es una seria como digo compleja, densa y con multitud de detalles pero queda todo explicado hasta la saciedad, quizá hasta demasiado con escenas de discursos aclaratorios o flashbacks de "por si no lo habías pillado".

Tras verme 3-4 episodios me puse la película por hacer memoria y me alegro de la decisión porque disfruté mucho más de todas sus referencias teniéndolas frescas en la memoria. Quizá mucha gente se hace la misma pregunta que me hice yo (porque las sinopsis son en ocasiones desacertadas): ¿Qué relación tiene con la película? Partiendo de la obviedad que tiene una novela gráfica y es lo que adapta Lindelof a su manera, también está la obviedad de que muchos no la hemos leído y vimos el film. Así que, sin entrar en spoilers, yo diría que es una secuela del film pero situado en una realidad/universo paralelo, con algunas cosas cambiadas.

Y nada, que eso, que es una maravilla y me dan ganas de volverla a ver de inmediato y seguro disfrutar con muchos detalles más.

Según USA Today, después de que Lindelof haya dejado el proyecto, la HBO no parece interesada en hacer una segunda temporada

Fuente: https://eu.usatoday.com/story/entert...ls/4491269002/

Voy por el 7o. Vaya que he visto los que parece más gustaron, 6o y 7o. De momento (y a estas alturas pues...) no me llama demasiado. Definitivamente Lindelof y yo no.. No es Leftovers pero aún así no siento apenas nada viéndola. En cuanto a la integración en el imaginario Watchmen, bueno, si pienso en que con los cambios adecuados podría ser cualquier otra cosa (de momento) sumado a que normalmente no veo interés en revisitar univeros de otros autores (y menos cuando estos pasan de todo) (y menos cuando hay esa diferencia entre la novela original y la película y serie) pues aún menos interés tengo en ello.

Veo un patrón en series de superhéroes de cierto tedio (aunque los responsables imagino buscan seriedad...) que veo como miedo a abrazar el género. Eso afecta al uso de emociones. Entre el universo Marvel-Netflix, Titans y esto, se me viene a la cabeza una pasta dura, difícil de masticar y aún más de tragar.

Lo de retorcer la obra de Moore (6o) pues... No sé.

Pues espera a lo que se viene en el 8o 9o.....

Iniciado por ShangT_Tnf

Pues espera a lo que se viene en el 8o 9o.....

Yep... Ayer la terminé. Sinceramente no puedo criticar la serie por sus valores dramáticos: está bien hecha y todo ralla a buen nivel. Simplemente, no me ha interesado nada, no me ha emocionado nada y no he logrado rascar nada pese a la obvia propuesta social.

La serie no necesita segunda temporada, de la misma manera que Origen no necesita segunda parte. El final está muy bien, y viendo lo anterior cada uno puede sacar sus conclusiones.

Antes de opinar sobre el último trabajo de Lindelof toca decir que Perdidos me pareció un despropósito (que se veía venir desde la 2ª temporada), pero que The Leftovers (tras una 1ª temporada correcta, pero con momentos de genialidad) es una maravilla. Original, melancólica y muchos momentos brillantes.

Watchmen, a pesar de algunos defectos muy graves, me ha parecido una gran continuación. Lo que debe ser una continuación: mantener el espíritu del original pero seguir adelante. Una evolución esperada que no es un remake encubierto de la primera (la moda en los últimos tiempos para no arriesgar), pero que sí sigue y avanza los temas políticos y filosóficos de la primera historia.

Y el que arriesga puede perder, y lo dicho, hay cosas en las que flojea:

Spoiler:

- Angela Abar es con diferencia el personaje menos interesante de la trama
- el desarrollo final del personaje de Laurie, una pena con lo bien que empezó y la buena actriz que tenían
- la visión sesgada (pero no inesperada) de los disturbios raciales de Tulsa
- la manía de Lindelof de meter misterios para rellenar que no aportan nada, como por ejemplo Lube Man

Pero, aún así, me parece perdonable viendo el increíble trabajo en lo demás. Me ha encantado como al final la mayoría de los detalles que hemos ido viendo a lo largo de la serie han tenido relevancia y que han conducido a un final triste pero correcto.

Spoiler:

Que los humanos intentarían matar a Dios/Dr. Manhattan era algo que ya intuía desde que leí el tebeo, incluso antes de llegar al final de esa historia. Es la evolución lógica.

También me ha parecido una maravilla una y cada una de las escenas de Jeremy Irons que me sacaban cada risa con su estilo absurdo e onírico (el juicio es pura comedia). Y fiel al estilo de Lindelof los capítulos dedicados exclusivamente a un personaje suelen ser excelentes. En este caso el capítulo para Looking Glass fue increíble.¡Que gran actor que es Tim Blake Nelson!

En fin, nada más acabarla me han entrado ganas de verla de nuevo. Creo que es de esas series que ganan con cada visionado.