Before Watchmen: The Comedian #1 Review

I think I should start this review by thanking Brian Azzarello & J.G. Jones for getting right to the point with this one. That nervous feeling I had about Cooke’s plans for the Minutemen and Silk Spectre series in the upcoming issues is non-existent when Comedian #1. Without wasting any time or giving me any false hope with a decent first issue they released a comic book that is both ridiculous and offensive fight off the bat. Maybe that’s being a little unfair, but I mean, the Kennedys? Marilyn Monroe? Why? Is it because much of the events of Watchmen take place in the 60s, so everything in the 60’s is caused by the Comedian? Is he Forest Gump all of the sudden? Why not have Comedian murder Paul McCartney and set up a look-a-like in his place named Billy Shears, it seems to make just as much sense as this concept. Before I go off on a fan-boy rant, let me add some structure to this review.

Art

The art is very detailed 

which, if you’ve read the other two reviews (hopefully someone has), you know I like this. I felt that Jones had an issue projecting the tone of the story’s panels onto his character’s faces though. It seems that most of the time the characters faces don’t match their conversation or setting.  Another thing I wasn’t fond of was how by this point it’s been 4 years since Jon Osterman rematerialized as Dr. Manhattan and yet nothing seemed affected by his presence. It may have been too early for the electric cars to have been developed, but even a picture of Kennedy and Dr. Manhattan on JFK’s desk would’ve at least been an acknowledgement of his existence. I know this is a nitpick, but it’s part of the reason why the world created for the in the story didn’t feel anymore like Watchmen than it did a Spiderman comic.

Story

I can see what Azzarello was trying to do with this story, but it just didn’t work and especially not as a set up for a 6 issue series. First things first: why the Kennedys? I don’t recall the Comedian ever meeting John Kennedy in Watchmen, let alone the whole family. Dr. Manhattan met the Kennedys, but not the Comedian. Moore treated this character as someone who didn’t care much about politics – other than for his own gain/enjoyment – but if he swayed any way, evidence suggests that it would be towards right-wing politics. He had been known to associate with Ford, and Nixon who are Republican leaders, so why choose the Kennedys for this story? My guess is that Azzarello is doing something similar to what Snyder did in the Watchmen film where he projected some of his own political views onto the narrative, such as taking shots at the Bush administration. That’s fine if you want to try to convey that message, but do it in a smarter way than this. Azzarello, like most Watchmen readers, found the Comedian to be an enjoyable character and the possibility that a character he likes could have opposing political views to him makes absolutely no sense in his mind. The Comedian must have had a reason for becoming so right-wing, and that reason is – Jackie O being secretly evil? The murder of JFK? I’m not sure. I am pretty confident that whatever the reason is, it’s probably stupid.

Jackie Kennedy asks the Comedian to murder Marylin Monroe (in the most awkwardly drawn and written panels in the story); because of the alleged affair she had with JFK. I guess this is believable in the context of Watchmen, but I feel no evidence is given as to why Blake doesn’t just tell her where to get off. There is no discussion of money. Are we supposed to believe that Blake cares about catching this gangster Giancana and that he murders her for that reason? It’s possible that it would earn him some good publicity but if this is the case, then why didn’t he wait around their place and kill Giancana too? And what was the deal with Jackie trying to get Blake to admit that he loved the Kennedys? Too many questions and I have no answers. There was barely any relationship development between Blake and Jackie. The whole interaction is out of left field and just seemed phony to me.

                                                    

It’s clear that Azzarello was trying to take the less predictable route and not have the Comedian be the murderer of JFK. I can appreciate the risk he took, but his story is so ridiculous that in the end he should have just stayed true to Moore’s text (or in this case, what was hinted in his text). The Monroe sequence was just as out-of-nowhere and awkward as the Jackie pages, and lent nothing to Blake’s character development.  

I’m on the fence about how I felt towards the inclusion of Moloch in this issue. On the one hand, the sequence is less offensive than anything else in the issue. On the other hand, it seems like they were trying to force too much emotion into the final panel and it just ended up feeling fake. The sequence that tried to mirror the interaction between Moloch and the Blake in Watchmen (where Blake asks for booze and they are crying during the JFK murder announcement) just felt like it was trying too hard to impress the reader, and was a little off putting. Is Blake supposed to lose faith in the world now because of JFK’s murder and ultimately become the loose cannon, murderer that he is in Watchmen? And if this is the case, then how do you explain all his loose cannon, and murdering behavior before Before Watchmen? More questions, still no answers.

Final Thoughts

I feel that Azzarello was trying to explore the “glimmer of gentleness” side of Comedian, which the reader only infers from the events Watchmen. He took it too far into ridiculous waters and failed miserably. One of the characteristics of Blake’s “soft side”, which Sally Jupiter falls for is that this gentleness is so rare. Why write him as a sympathetic character for a full issue? I didn’t get that moral dilemma, from this issue that I got when I sympathised with Blake in Watchmen, it just felt forced.

From the get-go, the tone of the story was off and Comedian’s personality traits that were developed in Watchmen, were not present at all. This review only scratches the surface of what’s wrong with this story, I could go on for hours. The only thing that gives this issue retribution is the fact that it is so ridiculous and offensive, that it’s actually kind of funny. This is the comic book equivalent of Tommy Wiseau’s The Room.

Before Watchmen: Silk Spectre #1 Review

The first issue of Silk Spectre, unlike Minutemen, received pretty moderate approval from most internet reviewers. Most praising Conner's artwork, but feeling that the story fell a little short of expectation and read a bit like a Betty & Veronica feature. I definitely have less to say about it than I did Minutemen #1, though I feel the same way about both books: Cooke treads lightly on the character's back-story in the first issue making it is relatively inoffensive to Watchmen fans while leaving a gut feeling that in the upcoming issues he's going to blow it.

Art

I thought Amanda Conner's art is very detailed, and I enjoyed most of what she did with the panels. One thing that I found a bit annoying was breakaway panels she created in anime style in order to depict Laurie's perspective on the situations she is in. For those of you who haven't read the issue, these sequences feature characters with over exaggerated features (such as sally Jupiter with devil horns and fangs driving a fire car) used to reflect how Laurie is feeling about something that’s happening in the story. These panels are a bit too cartoonish for me and seem too childish for the Watchmen universe. That being said, I did appreciate Conner’s ability to relay true emotion in every face she drew; no dead faces in this issue, and that’s a good thing.

Story

It's not horrible, but it left me with the feeling that Cooke is taking this character on a pointless tangent that I won't care about. Before I get into why, I want to talk about what I liked in the story. Like in Minutemen #1, I really enjoyed seeing the anecdotes mentioned in Watchmen brought into a full comic panel form. I thought starting the issue with the scene from Watchmen, after the fight between Sally and Larry was really smart and built a good foundation for the relationship between Laurie and her mother. I also enjoyed the way Sally forces her daughter to train against her in an absurd fashion. The struggles that Laurie faces living up to her mother’s high standards, while also dealing with ‘high school drama’ over her mother’s image as a celebrity seemed believable the in the context of Moore’s original Watchmen. These sequences keep true to the original text, which is probably why I like them so much. I didn’t really have an issue with the story being too ‘Betty & Veronica’, and on the contrary, felt that this type of narrative actually works well for this character.

Now for what I didn’t like about the story: I get the sense that Cooke is trying really hard to create a reason as to why Laurie gets into ‘masked adventuring’, when there really is no need. In particular I am talking about her boyfriend, Greg. He’s not a bad character (in fact he is actually pretty likeable), but I felt, from the get-go, that this creation of Cooke has only one of sole purposes: die, or betray Laurie by the end of the series. This is just speculation, but I feel the evidence is hard to ignore. In the beginning sequence Sally foreshadows something bad happening at some point in the series when she tells Laurie that she is “too young to hate. Wait until you’re older and the world gives you a good reason. Trust me, it won’t let you down”. My guess is that this has to do with Greg, and I’m a little nervous as to how it will turn out. At the end of the book, Laurie and Greg run away (or drive away) in a VW hippie van headed for San Francisco setting the following 3 issues up with a premise that gives Cooke something interesting to write about. Laurie will eventually need a reason to return, as we all know she does in order to take part in the events of Watchmen, and my guess is that something happens with Greg forcing her to “hate” the world and ultimately drives her back into the costume of a masked adventurer seeking revenge; again speculation, but this is what I think. Typically, I wouldn’t have an issue with this type of story arc but in this case, it’s just not necessary. In Watchmen, we learn that Laurie was forced into being a super-hero by her mother. That notion sets up a great character study and a coming of age story which could convey pressures everyone feels from their parents or peers about what to do with one’s life. Why not use this as the sole premise for a series rather than running off to San Francisco with hippies? Cooke began to build on their relationship in the beginning, and it was pretty successful, but the van to San Francisco seems like a pointless curveball to me. I guess it could work, if they continue to develop the Sally-Laurie relationship but I can’t help but feel concerned.

Final Thoughts

It starts out pretty decent but gets a little off track by the end. The main thing that really bothered me about this issue was that fact that Cooke is setting the series up for a story I will not like. For a first issue, it definitely didn’t leave me wanting more (rather, it left me wanting Moore teehee). I realize this is subjective and I openly encourage any alternative perspectives as I am by no means an expert, but this is a blog about what I think and that’s what I think.

I realize that for the second time I am stating how keeping true to Moore’s original story is crucial in the success of Before Watchman, but nothing could be truer. I suspect that Cooke is facing the same issue Snyder faced when trying to make the Watchmen movie which is that Moore’s characters are very deep and loved for their complexity. They are not easy to portray, though very easy to misunderstand. It’s not that I don’t want new stories for these characters, but I really do feel that books like Moore’s Watchmen, and Gaiman’s Sandman are unique because of their completion. If DC wants to reopen these characters’ stories do it right or don’t do it at all. 

Before Watchmen: Minutemen #1 Review

Everyone seems to like this book. IGN gave it a 9/10, MTV called it “brilliant”. As much as I want to avoid the premise of this event, I couldn’t help but be intrigued by the lack of hate the internet has for this work. I thought I would be happy among fan boys who boycott the Before Watchmen event on principle but the part of me that craves a good story took and over a few days after release, I picked up a copy. My verdict: Not bad...not brilliant, but not bad.

Art

I found the art to be visually appealing. The imagery was very smart. The opening panels seem like their straight out of Watchmen, so kudos there, although I feel that Cooke is not quite as detailed an artist as Gibbons...not any worse, just not the same. Just look at the facial expressions, and realism in Gibbon's compared to Cooke's Silk Spectre.

 Cooke's Silk Spectre

Gibbon's Silk Spectre

Story

There wasn’t much to the story; the book is basically a series of back-stories for each of the minutemen communicated through the perspective of Hollis Mason (Night Owl Sr.). Each one either pulled from something mentioned in Watchmen in the ‘Under the Hood’ excerpts or was a creation of Cooke. The back stories for Comedian and Mothman were probably the riskiest of the latter. So far Cooke has painted a young Blake as a mischievous 16 year-old thug who takes what he wants and does what he wants. Fine so far but Cooke would be wise to tread cautiously with this character, as he played a major role in Watchmen. Anyone who has read Moore’s character has likely established their own understanding of how Blake’s morality works, and his key personality traits. Hopefully Cooke has kept this in mind when working on Blakes story. Fine so far, but like I said, tread cautiously.

Cooke developed a new story for Mothman that is a bit of a risk, in my opinion. We learned in Watchmen that Mothman was commited to a mental institution after a long bout with alcoholism. Cooke’s invention lies in the concept of Mothman needing alcohol in order to build up courage to fly and ultimately perform as a masked adventurer. This is a change from what Hollis originally (in Watchmen’s ‘Under the Hood’ excerpts) stated which is that Mothman began drinking because of a ruthless investigation by the unAmerican Activities Committee. Nitpicking aside, the new concept is interesting but altering Moore’s original vision is definitely a risk. If this story is not developed properly it will likely not catch wind and fall on its face (see what I did there?).

I did actually enjoy Silk Spectre, Silhouette, and Night Owl’s back-stories. They were mostly stories or general musings lifted from Watchmen’s version of ‘Under the Hood’, so it was great to see these stories brought to panel. They reminded me of the parts of Snyder’s Watchmen film I actually liked because they stayed true to Moore’s original intentions. Staying true to Moore is a recipe for success. 

I do have one final concern, more so for future issues, which lies with the portrayal of Nelson Gardner A.K.A. Captain Metropolis.  I thought the back-story was interesting enough, with Gardener acquiring a Canadian Malting factory (CM – Captain Metropolis – get it?) but then again, I’m Canadian so I may be biased. My uncertainty lies with the last few panels. I always pictured CM as a straight laced Marine, who was polite and reserved. The reason I thought that: Hollis Mason says he’s polite and reserved in ‘Under the Hood’. He just seems too laid back, and the way he orders his butler around is unsettling. I know that’s a huge nitpick, and it’s really too early to judge Cooke’s character, but that just bugged me a bit.

Final Thoughts

It’s unfair to judge Minutemen solely on the first part. On the one hand I like what Cooke has done with some of the characters such as Silk Spectre and Silhouette (however, this could attributed to the fact that their back-stories were lifted right from the original text), but on the other hand, I’m nervous about how some of the character’s stories will pan out (mostly because of how Cooke displays a willingness to deviate from the original text). I enjoyed the book but while reading, I had this unnerving feeling that with a simple turn of the page Cooke could ruin the character’s I’ve loved for years; I think this is the consensus among fans about the whole Before Watchmen concept though. As stated earlier, Cooke would benefit from treading cautiously with these character’s back stories.

Would I recommend it? Sure. If you’re curious about how this event will turn out, give it a go. Is it a 9/10 work of sequential storytelling brilliance? Far from it, but like I said...not bad.  

I would like to introduce this blog as a way for me to share my thoughts about the current DC comics event, Before Watchmen. I am not a professional comic book reviewer, just a guy who loves stories and love the Watchmen. These will not be formal reviews, rather a collection of my thoughts on what was good and bad in each issue.  I will try to review, at least all the #1s for each character, and if this catches on, maybe I'll go further. I hope you enjoy!