It's leaked.

[simbob4000]

I'm failing to see the publicity in this publicity stunt. Dr Manhattan has't been in any of the preview images or the ads. Retailers made their orders 3 months ago. How DC handles this in the future remains to be seen, but whatever hype there is about this particular plot point is all fan-generated.

You don't see the publicity in this publicity stunt we're talking about right now?

[Coal Tiger]

You don't see the publicity in this publicity stunt we're talking about right now?

A bunch of nerds (including myself here) whining on a message board isn't publicity. DC isn't making any extra money because of this thread.

[Dr. Cheesesteak]

That's why great writers write for other companies.

Presuming you're right (which you aren't) for the sake of argument, they actually write for themselves, as those "companies" I believe you're referring to don't technically employ the vast majority of those writers.

...unless you meant Marvel and Valiant. But again, in which case, you're wrong.

[kingaliencracker]

No, people outraged at the books did back when they were getting really big. When you're doing a story that looks at fiction with characters from fiction, it's not exactly out there to cast them in the light they'd already been cast in by the public if it fits into some point you're making about that fiction.

When those other people won't let him have his toys he does. If DC wants to use not-Dr. Manhattan Dr. Manhattan to make some point about something, that's cool. It does kind of feel shitty though to do it with a character they aren't really supposed to own, but found a way to keep because of a loophole. But like I said before, from preview stuff I've seen it feels like a shot a Moore that ended up hitting Johns; so at least it's unintentionally funny.

I'm not going to get into a debate as to whether Alan Moore SHOULD own WATCHMEN or not. If we start down that path, we may as well discuss the Siegel/Shuster or Jack Kirby lawsuits while we're at it.

spoilers:

The bottom line is DC owns WATCHMEN. If they want to utilize a character from that story in a current story, I have zero problem with that. And as I said, at the end of the day whatever DC does with Dr. Manhattan has ZERO impact on how WATCHMEN is viewed or how you as a fan should feel about it.

end of spoilers

[Bored at 3:00AM]

So getting off spoilers:

the Dr. Manhattan reveal for a second, anyone else doing a double-take about the 3 separate Jokers that have been operating all these years? I actually find that more bothersome than bringing WATCHMEN into the DCU...

end of spoilers

It actually makes that character better in my view because it explains the radically different interpretations over the years and the countless returns from seemingly fatal injuries that should have put the character out of commission for months or years, but because of popular demand, keeps popping back up every couple months

[Myskin]

Mark Millar did the first CIVIL WAR, which was basically a giant, hero vs. hero fangasm. Even with that, however, he couldn't help but put his own political context/ideology into the story.

Maybe this is something similar to that. Maybe DC is asking Johns to do this huge story that resets the DCU, and Johns is putting in some of his own personal interpretation into the story?

spoilers:

Well, first of all we don't really know what Johns' personal opinions about the subject are (as far as I know). As far as I can tell, Johns never had particularly strong opinion about any creative subject whatsoever apart from a generic love for some old-school comics. The main difference here, though, is that when Marvel created CIVIL WAR, they weren't directly involved in the object of Millar's criticism. Marvel didn't create Enduring Freedom, or War in Afghanistan, or special security laws. They decided to take a very clear position on these subjects (within the limits of corporate comics, of course) and they were entitled to do so. In a way, it's more or less what DC did when they made Luthor President of the US. It happens rarely, but it happens: they created something which was a compromise between a legitimate point and a blockbuster. But DC (and Marvel of course) DID actively contribute to create tons of bad comics which misinterpreted and oversimplified the complexity of Watchmen. Moore didn't. Johns did. DC (and Marvel, of course) did. It can't even be interpreted as an operation focused on self-criticism, because they are not saying something like: well, we were wrong and we didn't understand what Watchmen meant. They are basically saying "Watchmen made us do it". On one hand they are undeservedly trashing Watchmen; on the other hand, they are exploiting its popularity.

end of spoilers

[dcdrew]

I am glad dc is making good use of the infinite multiverse and hypertime.

Where does it say this? I love Infinite Earths Multiverse and Hypertime never realized its full potential.

[Myskin]

I'm failing to see the publicity in this publicity stunt. Dr Manhattan has't been in any of the preview images or the ads. Retailers made their orders 3 months ago. How DC handles this in the future remains to be seen, but whatever hype there is about this particular plot point is all fan-generated.

spoilers:

Yes, Manhattan wasn't on the cover. But they have been teasing who the mysterious hand on the cover for months, there is no possible way they didn't know that this would generate a lot of controversy and buzz as soon as the comics (or its leak) was out. Also, this is clearly a long term operation.

end of spoilers

[Random4]

another thing that irritates me

spoilers:

this just makes Bruce look worse..the man is the "world's greatest detective..talking about the whole 3 jokers nonsense

end of spoilers

[Fuzzy Barbarian]

The three thing... eh. Again, feels like John trying to justify his dumb Darkseid War "really wants to be cool" moment.

I don't care about the controversial thing. In my mind, only the original thing exists, so whatever. No matter what DC does with it, its place in history as a piece of art is set.

The... I dunno, older thing? I had long given up hope, but I guess it's still a thing! I'm glad, but I'm not sure how continuity even works in this universe anymore!

Now, the OTHER thing... HE'S BACK!!!!! THE CHOSEN ONE!!!! Yes, clues were dropped, but skepticism around this is warranted, especially givent he Rebirth panel. But SEEING it... I'm a happy man today

[Coal Tiger]

spoilers:

Yes, Manhattan wasn't on the cover. But they have been teasing who the mysterious hand on the cover for months, there is no possible way they didn't know that this would generate a lot of controversy and buzz as soon as the comics (or its leak) was out. Also, this is clearly a long term operation.

end of spoilers

spoilers:

Up until the leak, all the buzz was about the return of Wally West. Hell, most people thought the hand on the cover was Wally's. This comes completely out of left field and it can't affect sales. I'd be willing to bet that more people buy Rebirth because of Wally than Dr Manhattan.

end of spoilers

[Diamond]

I disagree. I think it's something incredibly wrong with how fans perceive those stories, especially considering that none of the creators involved intended for them to be used as the standard or the norm.

As I said, I loved V FOR VENDETTA, SAGA OF SWAMP THING, WATCHMEN, THE DARK KNIGHT RETURNS. But my favorite runs of the genre are Byrne/Claremont X-Men, Waid Flash, O'Neil Batman, Jurgens/Stern Superman. For me, when the industry attempted to make the works of Moore, Gaiman, and Miller the norm was when they ran into the most problems. There's most definitely a place for work like theirs but at the end of the day I read a super hero comic book I want to read a super hero comic book, and that's not what those stories necessarily were.

V for Vendetta... a superhero comic?

[Coal Tiger]

V for Vendetta... a superhero comic?

Why not? He's got a mask, a costume, and a secret base.

[simbob4000]

I'm not going to get into a debate as to whether Alan Moore SHOULD own WATCHMEN or not. If we start down that path, we may as well discuss the Siegel/Shuster or Jack Kirby lawsuits while we're at it.

spoilers:

The bottom line is DC owns WATCHMEN. If they want to utilize a character from that story in a current story, I have zero problem with that. And as I said, at the end of the day whatever DC does with Dr. Manhattan has ZERO impact on how WATCHMEN is viewed or how you as a fan should feel about it.

end of spoilers

You've got a weird way of not starting down paths. I mean, you are the person that replied to one of my post with how Moore doesn't own Watchmen, even though said post had nothing to do with that. Are you like, saying you're not going to do something after doing it and also reminding us how comic companies dick others over too? I'm actually ok with not getting into it, but it kind of seems like you really want to.

Yes, DC cheated Moore out of his characters, and they can do whatever they want with them as they've clearly shown. I'm not sure what your point is: That it's ok because it won't hurt Watchmen, maybe? For a medium so built on continuity, it does seem interesting when someone kind of acts like they don't see how doing stupid things with a character could hurt them in some people's eyes.

[GodofBoredom]

If the New 52 and pre-Flashpoint are the same Universe, why are there two separate Superman from both continuities?

How in the hell does that make any sense?