Robot 6

Andy Kubert reportedly confirmed for DC’s Watchmen prequels

Evidence for DC Comics’ long-rumored Watchmen prequels keeps mounting, with apparent unofficial confirmation that Andy Kubert will be drawing one of four miniseries.

Bleeding Cool contends it’s been “informed quite conclusively from a reliable source” at the publisher that the artist is among the A-list talent involved in the secretive project, which reportedly will use key characters from the seminal 1986 miniseries by Alan Moore and Dave Gibbons.

Other previously mentioned creators include Darwyn Cooke, J. Michael Straczynski, J.G. Jones, John Higgins and even Gibbons himself.

Murmurs of DC’s desire for a Watchmen follow-up gained steam in 2010 after the departure of President Paul Levitz, believed to be the last in-house obstacle to using the Moore-Gibbons characters. The writer seemed to confirm as much last year when he revealed the publisher finally had offered to return the rights to the property — copyright and royalty issues form the roots of his legendary feud with DC — in exchange for a concession: that Moore “agree to some dopey prequels and sequels.” He refused.

Then-newly minted Co-Publishers Dan DiDio and Jim Lee said at the time that DC “would only revisit these iconic characters if the creative vision of any proposed new stories matched the quality set by Alan Moore and Dave Gibbons nearly 25 years ago, and our first discussion on any of this would naturally be with the creators themselves.”

As recently as August, Gibbons addressed perennial rumors of a sequel and the possibility of the characters being transplanted into the DC Universe, telling Comic Book Resources, “It’s not something that I’d personally like to see happen. […] What I would say is, intrinsic to the whole idea of Watchmen is that they existed in a world that was the way it was because of their existence. And I think to transplant them into another world actually removes a huge part of what is the essence of Watchmen.”



I’m good with it if it’s shown respect and done by A-listers.

God only knows the great stories we could yet get.

Sadly, there are no current A-listers that have the calibre and understanding of the meium to do it justice.

I mean: Andy Kubert? Really?

Leave it alone. There is no need to revist that book.

Sigh. Before we get too worked up, remember that Rich used almost the same language to assert that DC pulped an issue of Superman because of a cat in a tree.

But assuming it is correct, I think the larger problem here is less with the fact that Watchmen is this great, untouchable work of art, but rather that it is this great, untouchable work of art that was also a finite story. Did these characters have lives before Page 1? Of course. Do the survivors continue on after the book ends? Yes. But it doesn’t matter, because they are introduced to tell a certain story, they tell that story, and shuffle off stage. Beginning, middle, end. Watchmen is, and should be, different from Superman. Are there great Superman stories? Yes. Could we get great new stories featuring the Watchmen characters? Yes, we could. But adding to Watchmen subtracts from it. There’s nothing else you need to know about Rorschach or Night Owl or Silk Spectre, it’s all there in one. complete. story.

Now, excuse me, I’ve got to get back to writing The Scarlet Letter: Year One…


December 1, 2011 at 12:40 pm

Making a prequel or sequel to “Watchmen” without Alan Moore is like making a prequel or sequel to “Citizen Kane” without Orson Welles.

Look, something is either confirmed or it’s not. ‘Reportedly confirmed’ is a stupid way to say ‘rumored’.

Watchmen is overrated. It might have been something special in the 80ies, but nowadays? Feels in its deconstruction attempt rather stiff.

Its a stupid idea and I won’t read it, but it won’t change the greatness of the original. Therefore I want them to do it because Alan Moore’s reaction is going to be AWESOME.

Sacrilege to a classic. I don´t know why DC´s illuminated need that so bad. Watchmen doesn´t need prequel, sequel or anything, it´s out there, everything you need to know was told . It´s Moore´s and Gibbon´s baby and doesn´t need foster parents.

What’s remarkable about Watchmen was the sophistication of the storytelling techniques being applied to a genre that had not been known for such sophistication. Sequels or prequels miss the point.

Re: it not changing the original. Right, it can’t change the content, but it can change the context, both in terms of the Watchmen narrative and the status of Watchmen as a book. You might not read this, but a lot of people will, and once you start filling in these characters’ pasts, it necessarily changes how you read the original book.

Also, imagine you’re recommending Watchmen to someone who doesn’t read comics. Or that a journalist unfamiliar with comics needs to read Watchmen for an article, etc. Once you’ve got multiple volumes out, it creates the potential for confusion. Pick up the wrong one? “Oh, I heard Watchmen was great, but I read it and don’t see what the big deal is.” We lose that person. That can only be magnified by sloppy articles in the mainstream press–you know, the kind that still lead off every article about comics with “Pow! Bam!” If you’re writing about Watchmen and don’t know the whole history, how do you explain it? Do you treat Moore and Gibbons’ book as simply “Volume 1?” Do you talk about whatever events transpired in the prequels, all those shocking revelations? Or do you not bother, because the Moore/Gibbons book has become, essentially, one extraordinary arc in “just another” comic book series?

I think Watchmen prequels are a bad idea and more than a little disrespectful to Alan Moore, but I’m also not that worried about them downgrading appreciation of the original work.

Godfather III didn’t ruin my enjoyment of the first two films; the craptastic Hannibal doesn’t ruin my enjoyment of Richard Harris’ first two novels, Red Dragon and Silence of the Lambs; Lee and Kirby’s FF is still a joy, despite many less-than-stellar runs featuring the character over the years; and on and on …

I think this is a great idea! Prequels to classics are ALWAYS a good idea!

Just kidding, I won’t spend my money on these turds.

Why not use all that ‘A-list’ talent – plus all that time, enegy and creativity – on something new?

DC: Out of Ideas?

if Gibbon is involved i can say that quite possibly we will get the comic book equivalent of Paul’s McCartney’s Band on the Run compared to the Beatles…

Why not give this idea a chance/ it might just work..
Remember Alan shouldn’t get on his high horse so much since most of his acclaimed work is either a patiche of another creators work or a otherworldlly spin on it…

and let’s remember even Alan Moore has farmed out his works to other creators in his ABC line..

I just think this is a terrible idea. It’s a kneejerk reaction to prequels in general, but there it is.

I posted a list on the subject: 5 Reasons that Watchmen Prequels Are A Horrible, Horrible Idea:

No reason to revisit that comic. What is done is done. Now if they want to take a new set of characters, perhaps from DC or analogues of whatever with all this talent, then go for it. We may get another Watchmen or Seven Soldiers or something. But Watchmen prequels just doesn’t need to be done.

Personally I’d love to see Warren Ellis on a book featuring the inspiration for the Watchmen, the Charlton crew of course. I know an attempt was made but frankly it was terrible. If Mr. Ellis could make Marvel’s New Universe (New Universal) interesting I’d love to see him tackle Blue Beetle, Captain Atom, Nightshade, Peacemaker, Thunderbolt and The Question.

I guess 52 monthly titles isn’t enough work these days.

Why not use all that ‘A-list’ talent – plus all that time, enegy and creativity – on something new?

We have a winner!

Preach it, PreacherCain!

Probably DC will use A-Listers, yeah, that’s the less they could do.
We’re not talking about artistic integrity here, if the original needs prequels or sequels isn’t the point : milking over the characters is instant cash, even the shitheads who’re rulling DC now realized this. Even hard-core fans against the idea WILL read it.

It doesn’t take anything from the “majesty” of the original ? WRONG.
It won’t take anything excepted that will just screw it up. It will undoubtly take from the subvervise root of the original by making it becoming “Vol.1″.
I’m the first to admit prequels could provide wonderful stories, but I’m not sure it can say more about the characters that Moore hadn’t say.
Sequel ? you mean..if Rorscharch’ diaries were the goal of differents organisations, and if it was up to some new(civilians) characters to pass it onto themselves for nobody unthrusty could get it, that could be more or less an interesting story about sacrifice, but do you really expect the creating of new (interesting) characters..? DO YOU REALLY EXPECT THE REVOLUTION TO START FROM WHERE MOORE LEFT THE BOOK ??? DO YOU WANT TO READ THIS ?? DON’T YOU THINK THIS IS SOMETHING THAT YOU NEED TO DO IN YOUR LIFE FIRST ??

Call me whatever you want, a new WATCHMEN title will be propaganda, comforting us to stay on this fucking system we’re stucked into..Exactly what the original was fighting against..As some may thought things could change with the Occupy Thing, a new WATCHMEN comics would just say that we loose..again.

DC comics and the quest for more money…

Not only pointless, but missed whatever buzz the film might have given it completely.

No creative justification – pure, blatant money-making ploy.

Sweet, I love prequels.

And a business is designed to make money; I doubt they’d be happy giving us comics for free even if we loved it lol.

I don’t know. If you tell me that Darwyn Cooke and Dave Gibbons and JMS are working on somethng, you have my attention.

And quite frankly, at this point I almost want to see Moore throw another fit.

I love Alan Moore and all that, but saying that you still need him to tell the stories for the prequels of Watchmen is like saying you still need Bill Finger or Stan Lee to write all those other modern Batman and Marvel prequels/stories.

Get a grip, people.

I’m torn, as I think Watchmen works quite well as the self contained story it was. Yet DC needs to make money, especially in this crappy economy and how small the industry has become. I can understand not wanting to leave money on the table, and don’t really see much of a difference between exploiting Moore’s Watchmen characters & exploiting Siegal & Shuster’s Superman or the like.

It’ll probably wind up being like The Kingdom was to Kingdom Come. I still love and reread KC, can’t tell you damn thing about what The Kingdom was.

I don’t think DC will fit Watchmen in the new 52. If they do a prequel it will be in the Watchmen universe, and I don’t it’s a bad idea if there are good creators involved. And I think Watchmen is good but overrated, V for Vendetta is better.

Shaun, no I didn’t.

And Christopher, I agree, I don’t think even I’d get away with that phrasing…

Wow, this is just sad. There are plenty of new talents crawling out of the internet with fantastic ideas and whats DC going to do?

“lol hay u guys letz bastardize the shit out of somethin Moore left us 25 years ago wont it b awezome omgz”

Seriously DC? Are you that thin on ideas? Shit, at least Frank Miller has creativity and can move the fuck on.

(I really don’t know why I’m complaining, or posting for that matter. DC’s been selling the same shit since 1934. Anyone who is going to buy this crap has no sense of taste, and need to find better ways to spend their time and disposable income.)

face it, WATCHMEN is the sole serious opposent to the Marvel’ upcoming revival of MIRACLEMAN

I am not cool with this, and I’m usually the biggest supporter of new things. Watchmen was intended by Moore to be a one and done 12 issue run. Exploiting these classic characters only diminishes the effect of the original. We have characters like Batman, and Superman for those kinds of stories. I went into the relaunch with an open mind and no whining and ended up getting 47 DC series. But I will boycott this book, and I absolutely mean that. I imagine my vote won’t matter though, people will line up for this, but come on DC, you can’t exploit this product any further then the movie. That’s like rubbing salt into a chest wound.

No writer or creative team can show Moore or the original respect because the very existence of the a tacked on story is innately disrespectful. It goes against the wishes of the creator, how can that possibly be done respectfully?

you people all realize that Watchmen is not a totally original idea with totally original characters right?

While is is a well written book…. you could pretty much say this

JLA >>>>> Squadron Supreme
Charlton Action Heroes >>>> Watchmen….

in fact almost the WHOLE ABC line are not original concepts… does Alan have any ideas of his own? has he run out?

Actually, practically the whole ABC line was original concepts. Tom Strong, Promethea, Top 10…everything. You can still play in tropes and be original. That’s what Alan Moore is good at. What’s wrong with that?

“You can still play in tropes and be original.”

Yeah, I think there’s a significant difference between a talented author employing existing tropes or characters as a literary device and what sounds like a corporate mandated cash-in. But reading these comment threads over the years I’ve learned that many fans seems to make no distinctions when it comes to property and propriety.

Next up: Catcher in the Rye 2
Next up: Slaughterhouse-Six
Next up: The New-New Testament
Next up: Krazy Kat 2: Krazier Kats

Next up: DC Comics 2: webcomics–there’s new ideas out there!

Actually, with less snark, I think a big part of being a creator is making what already exists in the world (including other creative works) a subject of observation and then turning your observations into some sort of expression. But in this case I just don’t have much faith in the creators that have been named to actually create something all that new or any more interesting than the original work. From what I’ve read it sounds like it was a corporate decision to exploit a “brand” and sounds like the usual crap that corporate super hero comics try to pull in separating the creator from the work to churn out an assembly line product by a bunch of work for hire hacks. To me there is a big difference between the former case and the latter.


re: “Right, it can’t change the content, but it can change the context, both in terms of the Watchmen narrative and the status of Watchmen as a book. You might not read this, but a lot of people will, and once you start filling in these characters’ pasts, it necessarily changes how you read the original book.”

Yes, but that theory only works on the assumption that the readers are, well, total morons. People can watch the prequel Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom or Young Indiana Jones and then watch Raiders of the Lost Ark and still appreciate Spielberg and Lucas’ original vision even though Temple Of Doom was damn horrible. You know, cause most people are not 4 years old and can actually figure it out for themselves. Getting the picture?

And for all of you who are pissing your pants in anger about the “disrespect” shown to Moore then I direct you to Heidi’s comment about the subject over at TheBeat….

“That many of Alan Moore’s best known works are pastiches of other literary characters while he himself becomes incensed over changes to his characters….well that’s one of the delightful ironies of the world.”

Game, set and match.

This is going to happen and it’s going to be very popular and will make a shitload of money. That it pisses off Moore and some of the basement dwelling fanboys, well, that’s just icing on the cake.

The only thing funnier than satire is bad satire.

Here’s where I stand on the issue:

Don’t like it? Don’t buy it.


I was not a fan of Watchmen. I thought the comic book was pretty overrated.Anyone else agree or disagree.

Check out our website: We mention a character from Watchmen.

Leave a Comment


Browse the Robot 6 Archives