Did Watchmen influence the right things / or are comics reaching their full potential?

[Prince Disarming]

Watchmen is often compared to Citizen Kane in that they both were watershed moments of their particular medium and managed to bring something new to the table. Unfortunately, unlike Citizen Kane, I don't believe that Watchmen has had as fruitful an influence on its medium. I do believe that Watchmen has been influential, but I'm not sure creators are taking the truly innovative things from Watchmen. Often times, I fear they are taking the style and leaving the substance.

I think a lot of modern comics creators have taken the darker, more violent, and more sexulized tone from Watchmen and from Frank Miller's early work, but they haven't put they haven't put the same complexity that made Watchmen so groundbreaking. There is a sophistication in Watchmen that simply hasn't been attempted on a wide scale. Watchmen could have created a revolution in which creators picked up the torch and ran with it, but I don't believe that has happened, at least not on a big scale.

So I guess my question is why do you think this is? Also, If you think I am wrong show me how Watchmen has influeced others to tell more complex stories through the comic medium.

[Michael P]

It's a lot easier to take away "Rorschach beating people up is cool!" than to take away "I can take these same techniques and apply them to my own work to produce the same level of depth". Hence, more creators do the former than the latter.

[Prince Disarming]

That makes it sound like all creators didn't notice the deeper stuff at play in Watchmen, which I don't believe it true.

[GozertheGozarian]

That makes it sound like all creators didn't notice the deeper stuff at play in Watchmen, which I don't believe it true.

If creators did notice, they didn't care.

[Shawn Hopkins]

I don't think it's just that the creators didn't notice, although some of them clearly didn't. But more importantly a lot, I'm going to be cynical and say most, of the fans didn't notice. They were buying it because they thought it was just a cool, dark, adult take on superheroes. They liked seeing the superficial grimness and "mature" stuff without paying any attention to the deeper themes and techniques. Same thing happened with The Dark Knight Returns and Arkham Asylum and The Killing Joke.

And comics publishers big and small noticed that and thought, "Money!" so they pumped out stuff that maimed raped every goofy longjohned idiot they had the legal right to maim and rape. Stuff that really was as superficial as the Watchmen that those not too deep readers experienced. And they made shitloads of money on it for a long time, essentially until it collapsed under its own weight.

[Kees_L]

I think that the foremost problem any produce faces is finding an audience, whereas for an audience it might seem more like "why don't people make a ton more stuff I'm liking?!"

A problem for which the Big Two made themselves exist, since what they offer is limelight to the price of them dictating content or taking over ownership over such, whereas the finding quality or some constant search for title variety would be much less of a target. Big or commercial publishers exclude risk instead of taking such, leaving such to anyone with less to lose.

The idea that Watchmen is a template or blueprint on how to be creating the perfect comic or story is not correct, because it will have been made how it was due to where popular comics would be at that point, more as following from how things were at that point: enormous audiences and not much innovation or diversity happening where Big Two popular titles would be concerned.

The mere fact that GoT is made into TV is not a template, or Harry Potter becoming a hit is not a template, it's basically just stuff which just happened to become popular. There might exist far better suited material but from a hindsight perspective that wasn't what big publishing corporations went with, because they went with what they went with.

Art or great stuff can only be or seem great on account of not proving run-of-the-mill.

Watchmen bringing earnest politics or morality coupled with Citizen Kane-type-of-fictiituous-journalism and faux existentialism into superhero comics will have lead to a pretty genius seeming mini-series, but not any kind of template or blueprint on how to be creating the perfect comic forever more.

If you're a writer or take courses on such you can learn how for creating there would always be solutions to any problem, but you would need to make yourself able to find it. Which however does not mean there would be any kind of a formula or perfect strategy to follow for writing fiction.
Or either publishing it. At least not towards what to be producing successfully.
Because things appearing fresh or new or uncharted territory can only be stuff that would actually be fresh or new or uncharted territory. Look at most generic flagship poppy superheroes - that is being 'charted territory' because it is. Or a thing to learn from Harry Potter books or GoT tv series would be: don't produce more of such similarly because that would surely if not literally be overkill.

[Shawn Hopkins]

I thought you said Overtkill, and that made me think of this. I think this page provides a satisfactory answer to the OP's question. Watchmen's darker tone married to fourth-grade storytelling.

[ed2962]

It was simply easier for people to copy the more superficial aspects of Watchmen and Dark Knight (violence, grim tone) than it was to create stories that were more layered or sophisticated. Both Miller and Moore recognized it even back in the back. They thought that we were going to see more artists pushing the envelope, but instead we got more stories about depressed superheroes.

[FanboyStranger]

If creators did notice, they didn't care.

I don't think that's true. What actually happened is they noticed the sophisticated storytelling and dense, layered narrative, and realized it's simply too much work for an ongoing monthly title. They scraped off what was easy-- the dark tone, the theme, the violence, the mystery story that develops over time, etc.-- and ignored the more difficult craft elements. That's what happens when the impetus to get a book out on a regular schedule for consumption is more important than producing art.

[CSTowle]

I'd agree, most comics are like TV shows (wide range of quality) and "Watchmen" was like a once in a generation Oscar darling movie. You can't expect every written TV show to be at the level of a "Schindler's List" or "the Godfather", but that shouldn't stop you from enjoying a "Big Bang Theory" or "Doctor Who".

[Prince Disarming]

I don't think that's true. What actually happened is they noticed the sophisticated storytelling and dense, layered narrative, and realized it's simply too much work for an ongoing monthly title. They scraped off what was easy-- the dark tone, the theme, the violence, the mystery story that develops over time, etc.-- and ignored the more difficult craft elements. That's what happens when the impetus to get a book out on a regular schedule for consumption is more important than producing art.

That is very true and something I didn't consider. Gibbons and Moore had the blessing of time to work out the specifics of their story. They new the beginning, middle, and end going in and that allowed them to create this complex cohesive work. You average tittle really can't put in that kind of detailed planning because they are uncertain of how long their story will go on. They have to make it up as they go along.

[Kees_L]

I don't think that's true. What actually happened is they noticed the sophisticated storytelling and dense, layered narrative, and realized it's simply too much work for an ongoing monthly title. They scraped off what was easy-- the dark tone, the theme, the violence, the mystery story that develops over time, etc.-- and ignored the more difficult craft elements. That's what happens when the impetus to get a book out on a regular schedule for consumption is more important than producing art.

I'd agree, most comics are like TV shows (wide range of quality) and "Watchmen" was like a once in a generation Oscar darling movie. You can't expect every written TV show to be at the level of a "Schindler's List" or "the Godfather", but that shouldn't stop you from enjoying a "Big Bang Theory" or "Doctor Who".

Yep, agreed. It would seem to me that as of the late 1980s prestigious 'graphic novel' projects and mini-series (or *limited series* and *prestige format* as they were called back then) were launched.
Budgetted and slated differently than just weeklies or monthlies, more akin to Mad Men or Twin Peaks than just daytime shows, or any Hitchcock movie versus a B-flick.
With creative names having become dependable regulars as having been trained and mentored much in an 'in-house' fashion for years already, names like Bill Sienkiewicz and Frank Miller, to team up with eyecatchers such as Alan Moore or big guns like Wrightson or Starlin and Simonson and such.
Not to take anything away from monthlies or regular titles, but Marvel Epic imprint books or DC limited serie graphic novel stuff, Watchmen, tDKR, Elseworlds, all weren't regular titles but titles less restrained on time and care, in order to win customers over as forming 'blockbusters' and also presenting more of a lasting product since a graphic novel or OGN presents the access and completeness of a fullfleshed book more rather than a fragmented sequential format might.

Although by 1993 apparently, likely due to the rise of 'Image comics' (I hardly know what that even was about back then), most esteemed or prestigious projects or names become to happen independently more rather than through the Big Two, it would seem. Which is basically great, but it means that for any licensed or estate-owned material special dispensation would be needed, for any big gun or eyecatcher to get any new projects off the ground on top of just regularly slated titles.
I feel I'm not seeing much of that happening through DC and Marvel these days, at all. Or I wouldn't know, because those publishers their stuff now prove away from anything I'd be to follow.

[Kees_L]

Your average tittle really can't put in that kind of detailed planning because they are uncertain of how long their story will go on. They have to make it up as they go along.

Well, that just depends on "your average title" I suppose. My average title will need to be established and figured out as *a piece of art* or basically as finished as any product really.
I would want to be paying a high enough price and won't mind having patience, so no cheapness or deadlines are either needed or warranted at all for such a thing as art or be that entertainment.

All the comics and books and products I would know were readied and made well prior to becoming a product. Whether they'd be installments or made on a deadline or not.

No artist needs deadlines or budgets too tight, so most likely no consumer either. Because when stuff is made too fast or too cheaply or not as established well enough it'll be just crappy stuff. Like when merchandising is made or rushed for the sake of jumping onto some bandwagon or craze, then that will be just bad publishing.
Same with the Big Two churning out their stuff for dominating the racks at shops or among sollicitations: that kind of stuff cannot be good or hasn't been proving to be.

So there would not have to be put much respect or endearment onto weeklies or monthlies or any comics too strictly deadlined and budgeted. Robert Crumb or Eisner or Dave Stevens didn't. Hergé didn't and old Charlie Dickens certainly didn't. Kirby wouldn't have chosen to. Good books get accomplished due to being catered to enough from whatever publishing end, I would think.
It's not a proud thing to base work on exploiting when art or wellmade stuff is what you're after, because good art or good reading doesn't need tight deadlines or crap wages.

[AZBarbarian]

This is why people like Moore and Miller are superstars of the medium. Just because they can do it, it doesn't mean that everyone can do it.

[MattinDurham]

Watchmen is often compared to Citizen Kane in that they both were watershed moments of their particular medium and managed to bring something new to the table. Unfortunately, unlike Citizen Kane, I don't believe that Watchmen has had as fruitful an influence on its medium. I do believe that Watchmen has been influential, but I'm not sure creators are taking the truly innovative things from Watchmen. Often times, I fear they are taking the style and leaving the substance.

I think a lot of modern comics creators have taken the darker, more violent, and more sexulized tone from Watchmen and from Frank Miller's early work, but they haven't put they haven't put the same complexity that made Watchmen so groundbreaking. There is a sophistication in Watchmen that simply hasn't been attempted on a wide scale. Watchmen could have created a revolution in which creators picked up the torch and ran with it, but I don't believe that has happened, at least not on a big scale.

So I guess my question is why do you think this is? Also, If you think I am wrong show me how Watchmen has influeced others to tell more complex stories through the comic medium.

It all depends on what you're going to count "sophistication" and "complexity." And do you mean solely in terms of writing or visually as well? Warren Ellis's Planetary and Millar's The Ultimates I & II, for example, were certainly meta-genre in a way that's clearly related to Watchmen. Chris Ware's work is clearly sophisticated and complex in it's approach to story telling.