"DC Universe: Rebirth" #1 Contains a Surprising and Likely Controversial Crossover

[phantom1592]

If your definition of good is "something I subjectively like", that's certainly true. But the world of culture and art is so massively complex and huge that it passes over personal tastes. To quote the example I proposed above, you can't begin a serious, well-argumented lecture about history of art by saying that you think that Michelangelo's David sucks (well, unless you don't want to shock your public, but that's not really serious). First of all, no one would care, and in the second instance you would look incompetent.

From what I've seen of the world of culture and art... much like everywhere else... nobody agrees on anything. Michelangelo's David is excellent... but it's also very realistic. It's a person that's carved to look like a person and it does that extremely well. There is obvious skill and artistry and the desired result is perfect. Talking about people like Picasso and Van goh? There gets a lot more subjective as to what is and is not 'masterpieces'.

But yeah, I think everyone likes David.

[Lee Stone]

If your definition of good is "something I subjectively like", that's certainly true. But the world of culture and art is so massively complex and huge that it passes over personal tastes. To quote the example I proposed above, you can't begin a serious, well-argumented lecture about history of art by saying that you think that Michelangelo's David sucks (well, unless you don't want to shock your public, but that's not really serious). First of all, no one would care, and in the second instance you would look incompetent.


To say the truth, Watchmen is one of the few stories whose qualities (at least, from a technical point of view) can broken down and examined objectively - that's why there are essays about it.

And most of the characters from League of Extraordinary Gentlemen come from works even more revered than Watchmen.

[phantom1592]

And most of the characters from League of Extraordinary Gentlemen come from works even more revered than Watchmen.

And unlike a lot of other things... These were classic literary characters that were NOT treated with respect. With main characters being opium addicts and rapists and cannibals... For the people who knew the characters origins... that book was designed to shock and awe. The same kind of thing people criticize when done in movies and television series.

[Myskin]

I'm with you up to a point, in that some things are obviously objectively important and influential. There can be objective milestones. I differ on the masterpiece part.

Well, I suppose that at this point it depends on your definition of masterpiece. If masterpiece means "something I must like at all costs", it is certainly true that masterpieces don't exist.

The fact that the vast majority of people agree on something doesn't make it objectively true.

That's a bit of a problematic statement, and it depends on the context and the object of your assertion. I'll give you an example: the most important cultural milestones are widely considered landmarks for a series of objective reasons: because, generally speaking, at one point in time, you can look back and see that in the latest 30, 50, 100 years everything was influenced by that particular book/painting/movie/symphony. Everybody agrees upon it, and denying it would be pretty stupid. But, for example, I think that in a lot of cases, a lot of contemporary movies will be forgotten or downsized as years will go by. For example, I think that the Avengers series will be remembered mostly for its commercial value, rather than its artistic merit. Universal acclaim at the very moment when a movie is out doesn't mean much.

I think some of the outrage over the use of Watchmen characters is hypocritical. Moore was using ersatz Charleton characters that he didn't create. The whole book was an exercise in self-referencing and commentary. That's the same exact thing Johns is doing.

Nope, because Johns isn't using ersatz characters. It may seem nitpicking, but it isn't.

[Myskin]

And most of the characters from League of Extraordinary Gentlemen come from works even more revered than Watchmen.

Everybody knows it, including Moore. So?

[Random4]

there is no such thing as something being objectively good...

you can have 99.999999 percent of the population like a movie that say its the greatest ever, and one guy like "it sucked"

still isn't objective, I mean this is common sense

[Myskin]

From what I've seen of the world of culture and art... much like everywhere else... nobody agrees on anything. Michelangelo's David is excellent... but it's also very realistic. It's a person that's carved to look like a person and it does that extremely well. There is obvious skill and artistry and the desired result is perfect. Talking about people like Picasso and Van goh? There gets a lot more subjective as to what is and is not 'masterpieces'.

But yeah, I think everyone likes David.

Sorry, but aesthetics goes way beyond the mere faithful representation of someone's features. And I seriously doubt that anyone could seriously call into question Cubism or Impressionism.

[Darth Kal-el]

Even if the Watchmen is the perfect masterpiece some claim it is, which in my humble opinion it isn't, there is no reason for DC not to use characters they own for new stories. This isn't about being disrespectful to the book because they aren't saying it sucks or altering it or not continuing to sell it. Also they owe nothing to a man who disrespects them every chance he gets. This is just a new story and I am excited to see where it goes.

Moore and his fans are also hypocrites when attacking those for building on his work. The majority of his work was not original and built on the works of others so there is no harm here.

[Daniel22]

Well, I suppose that at this point it depends on your definition of masterpiece. If masterpiece means "something I must like at all costs", it is certainly true that masterpieces don't exist.


That's a bit of a problematic statement, and it depends on the context and the object of your assertion. I'll give you an example: the most important cultural milestones are widely considered landmarks for a series of objective reasons: because, generally speaking, at one point in time, you can look back and see that in the latest 30, 50, 100 years everything was influenced by that particular book/painting/movie/symphony. Everybody agrees upon it, and denying it would be pretty stupid. But, for example, I think that in a lot of cases, a lot of contemporary movies will be forgotten or downsized as years will go by. For example, I think that the Avengers series will be remembered mostly for its commercial value, rather than its artistic merit. Universal acclaim at the very moment a movie is out doesn't mean much.



Nope, because Johns isn't using ersatz characters. It may seem nitpicking, but it isn't.

I was referring to the way you seemed to be using masterpiece, meaning something that has transcended subjectivity into the realm of objectively great. Maybe I misunderstood. In any case, I think we both understand each other's points.

The popular/good argument is well covered, I don't have anything new to add to it... Obviously, most people think Watchmen is both. I still think that even if 99.99% of people think it's great, that just means that nearly everyone has the same subjective opinion. It doesn't make it anything more than a well-liked piece of art, or make it untouchable.

I don't see the distinction. Didn't Moore want to use the real characters, anyway? I read that, but don't remember the source or its credibility. In either case, Moore used stand-ins for characters that he didn't create to make a commentary on comics. Johns is using characters he didn't create to make a commentary on comics. What if Johns had used obvious stand-ins? What would that change? I don't think it would change anything...

[Lee Stone]

I was referring to the way you seemed to be using masterpiece, meaning something that has transcended subjectivity into the realm of objectively great. Maybe I misunderstood. In any case, I think we both understand each other's points.

The popular/good argument is well covered, I don't have anything new to add to it... Obviously, most people think Watchmen is both. I still think that even if 99.99% of people think it's great, that just means that nearly everyone has the same subjective opinion. It doesn't make it anything more than a well-liked piece of art, or make it untouchable.

I don't see the distinction. Didn't Moore want to use the real characters, anyway? I read that, but don't remember the source or its credibility. In either case, Moore used stand-ins for characters that he didn't create to make a commentary on comics. Johns is using characters he didn't create to make a commentary on comics. What if Johns had used obvious stand-ins? What would that change? I don't think it would change anything...

Yes, he originally planned to use the Charlton characters.
But seeing the shape they would end up in, DC nixed that idea because they wanted to use them beyond Watchmen.

[martianarts]

The whole point of Watchmen was to exploit the latent fascist tendencies of superhero comics; just taking the tools and turning the message upside down 180 degrees is.. I dont know.. somewhat vile. these are not people I would like to have a beer with. That said, to me the whole concept also has the kinky fascination of a good car crash; it will take effort to ignore it.

[resipsaloquitur]

What about Scooby Apocalypse #1--does that have a blatant connection to Rebirth, or was it just Porter being cute?

[Daniel22]

The whole point of Watchmen was to exploit the latent fascist tendencies of superhero comics; just taking the tools and turning the message upside down 180 degrees is.. I dont know.. somewhat vile. these are not people I would like to have a beer with. That said, to me the whole concept also has the kinky fascination of a good car crash; it will take effort to ignore it.

I've been on this subject all day... It's another testament to Watchmen that I've heard at least a dozen different "The whole point of Watchmen was ____" statements. I've made a few of them myself! And the amazing thing is that you can make a valid case for at least six or eight of them.

[Myskin]

I don't see the distinction. Didn't Moore want to use the real characters, anyway? I read that, but don't remember the source or its credibility. In either case, Moore used stand-ins for characters that he didn't create to make a commentary on comics. Johns is using characters he didn't create to make a commentary on comics. What if Johns had used obvious stand-ins? What would that change? I don't think it would change anything...

Ok. I'll give you an example.
You know these guys?
http://www.craveonline.co.uk/images/...n/elite628.jpg

That's the Elite, a rip-off/parody of the Authority created by Joe Kelly to prove a point about Superman. Kelly used a meta-commentary about the Authority, and he created a group which included the worst characteristics of Ellis' Super-team. It WASN't the Authority, though; because - apart from copyright reasons (I don't know if DC had already acquired Wildstorm) - Kelly wanted to focus on peculiar features which accompanies these characters, but he also didn't want to take into account other details.

Creating rip-off characters present a series of advantage: it gives you more artistic freedom (ask Erik Larsen) and allows your meta-commentary to be more effective, because there is a certain degree of distance from the original creation. You aren't using those characters, you don't claim that you are the best fit for them and you are not implicitly suggesting a comparison between you and the original creator. That's why Morrison's Multiversity issue about E-4 was so good: he put his own spin about those archetypes - who resemble Rorschach & c., but they are not exactly the same - and his criticism of Watchmen was thus more effective.

But that's not what Johns is doing here. Johns is using the REAL Dr Manhattan from the REAL Watchmen and he is basically giving a sequel to their adventures, thus exploiting Watchmen's enduring popularity, but at the same time he is misinterpreting them (for a lot of reasons, and among those there is the fact that Watchmen was never a story about a cynicism - that's just oversimplification: it's a complex novel which includes cynicism and a lot of different themes, but at this point I think that it is entirely possible that we will see Superman fighting Dr Manhattan with the power of hope and optimism or some crap like that). There is no distance at all, because he is using the characters as if they were created for work-of-hire comics from the very moment they were born in, like Superman or Batman. We'll never know for sure, but I think that if Johns had used ersatz Watchmen characters, nobody would have said a thing, including Moore.

"But Moore used a lot of characters in his LXG saga, and he used their REAL names!" Yes, but that's a different context. Moore used the LXG stories as a vast and extremely complex essay about the history of pop culture and the society which was tied to such culture. That's why there are stereotypical Chinese people in one of the stories - that's the way Chinese were intended at that time. When he makes James Bond a mysoginist douche, he is not saying "I can give a sequel to James Bond's adventures", but "In the old stories Bond was mysoginistic because society and the representation of sex were different; I want to emphasize this aspect". Also, the vast majority of the characters who appear in LXG are universally known (nobody could think that Moore is presenting himself as R. L. Stevenson's artistic successor because he uses Mr Hyde) and 99% were created in a different century - the distance between Moore and the original creators is huge, and in a lot of cases they have already been the focus of other pastiche novels.

[Bluebolt1967]

Well, I guess I now have to blame Dr Manhattan for the last 5 years and not Dan DiDio...