I love everything that you say. Maybe the Kents being alive was not there in the original books but i don't care. They were part of some wonderful stories when they were around. I definitely want them back. If nothing just allow them to meet their daughter-in-law and their grandson. They are old. They would die anyway. Why not allow them to meet Lois and Jon? Allow them to die say eight years into Superman's career. If they are alive i love it. Superman who is not 'bright' as you mention just feels a bit off to me.
If nothing from a storyteller's perspective they are another tool in the toolbox.
I don't think the super powered characters of DC apart from superman are going to get involved as it would put the WM characters severely at a disadvantage given their lack of powers. I wonder if luthor (who may have turjed into a herl again after imperius lex) and Adrianne will team up to take down the respective supermen of their universes who they each have tried to get rid of so they wont interfere in their plans and who coincidentally have each caused them some malady if you consider the silver age luthor who blamed his baldness on Clark and then the PC one later on got cancer due to prolonged exposure due to wearing the kryptonite ring just as Adrianne's cancer seems to be caused by Manhattan in poetic revenge. It also seems that roscharche and Batman will be teaming up soon to find "god" though why Bruce thinks working with such a unstable character is a good idea will require a good deal of explanation. I wonder if manhattan is ultimately going to try to separate Superman's intrinsic field and turn him into another "god" or true Superman to see whether he could create another being like himself in true exploration of the omnipotence paradox question and inadvertently hand superman the means to defeat him.
Last edited by theoneandonly; 11-23-2017 at 05:03 AM.
From recollection, he's shown to die in Adrian Veidt's "Alien" creature attack. As is Malcolm Long, one of the other major possibilities (although Long would probably in any case be too old and sedentary to transform himself post trauma into a character who was capable of physically intimidating Veidt).
The hand looked smooth, though, so I agree that "Rorschach" is probably young.
Like it seems a lot of other people, I was surprised that this was good.
In part, I was surprised, because from the preview it read like a mediocre Rorschach monologue pastiche But, of course, there is a reason for that. "New" Rorschach is a Rorschach pastiche, but the way in which the character is shown to vary from the original (his confusion and occasional uncertainty) accounts for the changes in narrative voice and was well handled.
I had my doubts and qualms about this, still do really, but I have to say the first issue was better than we had any reason to expect it would be.
Geoff Johns shouldn’t try to replicate Moore’s writing. I understand his intention, but he’s far away from accomplishing that feat without coming out as a poor man’s Moore. He’s just such a distinct writer and his work in comics couldn’t be more different. I hope this turns into a story more suitable to Johns’ strengths. The art was great, as usually with Gary Frank
"The Batman is Gotham City. I will watch him. Study him. And when I know him and why he does not kill, I will know this city. And then Gotham will be MINE!"-BANE
"We're monsters, buddy. Plain and simple. I don't dress it up with fancy names like mutant or post-human; men were born crueler than Apes and we were born crueler than men. It's just the natural order of things"-ULTIMATE SABRETOOTH
Quick question: Does #1 have any kind of ads in it?
I agree, I was initially let down that he seemed to be aping Moore’s style - it felt like playing it kinda safe to not anger fans of the original. However, I do think he did a good job with it and it’s hard to imagine the usual Geoff Johns style working in the Watchmen universe.
Overall, it was a solid issue but not mind blowing as it was hyped up to be. I hope the next issue adds more ties to the DC universe, since that was sorely lacking in #1. Regardless, I’m glad to see Johns writing again!
Last edited by soundsci; 11-23-2017 at 08:08 AM.