"Next someone will want proof of why vanilla is better than chocolate."

Well, that's silly.  Of course everybody knows vanilla is better than chocolate.

QUOTE: it's nowhere near as good as Watchmen either in the writing or the art, nor does it hold up nearly as well.

The art may have been better than in Squadron Supreme but the writing certainly wasn't.

QUOTE: Though it holds a dear spot in my heart, it wasn't as innovative as Watchmen was.

How is it more innovative? Most of Watchmen's innovations were in Squadron.

Squadron Supreme was a great series and I enjoyed it tremendously. It's definitely underrated. But I don't think it deserves the same level of praise as Watchmen . The storytelling techniques Moore and Gibbons employed there were groundbreaking in comics - it's the Ulysses or The Sound and the Fury of comic books.

But that doesn't mean some people won't like Squadron Supreme better, and that's fine. I'm glad we don't have to pick, as I have thoroughly enjoyed reading and re-reading both.

I liked Squadron better than Watchmen.
I liked V for Vendetta better than Watchmen.

I like Vanilla better that Chocolate.

But sometimes "better" doesn't equal "popular".  It's like me arguing that Field of Dreams is a better movie than Titanic.  I still have to admit Titanic had a bigger impact.

I know art is subjective, but Dave Gibbons is fantastic. He doesn't get enough credit in the success of Watchmen. I challenge anyone who disagrees to a thumb wrestling match. I'm talking to you, George Lee. :) 

I really dig the Squadron Supreme mini-series. It doesn't get the accolades it should. I honestly have no idea why it doesn't.

I cant remember a thing about that particular S.S. story. Even though I've read it and read a synopsis or two online. It just never sticks.For me the Thomas and Englehart takes are pretty much it.

I know SS had at least two artists.  Bob Hall & Paul Ryan (sorry I can't remember who inked them).  It has been years since i have read either SS or The Watchmen but I remember liking them both.

Robert-- I disagree that Johnny Cash did a better version of Hurt than Trent Reznor did.  I think it was a cool version and different but not better. 

And because Alex Ross pushed for it and offered to paint the cover

********************

For free?

I think a lot of it has to do with the fact that Gruenwald just wasn't that well-known as a writer. Moore was already making a name for himself by the time he did WATCHMEN. There's only three things I can think of that Gruenwald wrote: the HAWKEYE mini, CAPTAIN AMERICA, and SS. While Hawkeye was fun neither it nor CA has ever been seen as a watermark run* for the character. Sure there were some bright spots, but most fans probably remember the worst parts ( Werewolf Captain America comes to mind) more quickly and more often. I just think he's not known as being a great writer.

And as suggested earlier, not having a set artist for the whole series took some wind out of its sails. At least for me it did. I've never been a fan of having a fill-in artist in the middle of a mini-series. Hated the Layton issues of SECRET WARS. And WATCHMEN had Dave Gibbons. 'Nuff Said.

Finally, I don't think Marvel pushed SS as much as DC did WATCHMEN. I remember a couple of house ads for SS and that's about it. DC had that plus "Who Watches The Watchmen" in their cover corner boxes for months prior to the release. Now, I wasn't privy to any of the fan press back in the day, so I really don't know how much either one of them  was played up in that arena.

Bottom line, I think it comes down to the names involved. Moore/ Gibbons were/ are just seen as superior craftsmen than Gruenwald/ Hall/ Beatty/ De La Rosa/ Ryan/ Buscema ( maybe not this one!)/ Guice.

* I'll readily admit I've not read every issue he wrote in the series.

Also because "Watchmen" comes off as far more "literary" by using such devices as the comic within the comic, symmetrical page layouts, all that prose-style backstory material, etc. "Squandron Supreme" is "just" a superbly told, traditional superhero comic book tale.

*****

Thats the best point in the thread.

I’ve been lurking around here for quite some time, but I finally got the root out and registered this week- so…hi.   Now this is probably not the type of thread that someone should make their first post in, but it’s also the type that’s too hard to resist.

I’ve never read Squadron Supreme, and therefore am not prepared to compare the two, but the things that I admire about Watchmen, like others have mentioned, do not include the plot.  In fact, the first time I read it, when I was a bit younger, I found it almost a chore to read.  It wasn’t until I became concerned with, and interested in the nature of storytelling in the comic book form that I came to appreciate the structural quality of the story.  To me, above all else, I love the trust given between the writer and artist.  It obviously came from a very full script, but the writing and the art don’t compete with one another, allowing a real subtlety to manifest and develop; lesser writers often feel a need to write all over the art in strangely unnecessary ways.

One question I do often find myself asking about Watchmen, however, is who was it written for?  Was it written for readers, or was it written for creators?  Because there’s a real limit to a story if it alienates its audience, but I guess in this case, it seems to have found an audience.  So who knows.

The original Squadron Supreme mini series has never garnered the same amount of critical praise that Watchmen has gotten because it just isn't as good.

Andrew, I didn't say he was a bad writer. I was just saying he's not known for his great writing. Even in my case I remember Gruenwald ( very fondly, I will add) more as being an editor. Loved the Avengers family of books when he was in charge of 'em. Loved his lettercols.

I guess my overall point would be illustrated by this:

Two books on the rack. One written by Gruenwald and one written by Moore. Which book is the owner of the shop gonna have to refill more? And don't go by your personal preference. What do you think fandom as a whole is going to lean towards? Gruenwald's book or Moore's?

Moore is known around fandom as being a great writer. In the upper echelon, even. Gruenwald, like it or not, is not.

Funny.  I haven't read much of Dave Gibbons work.  But I love me some Bob Hall and Paul Ryan!!

I've certainly re-read Squadron much more than Watchmen.  Watchmen drags really bad when I try to read it now.  Once the mystery is gone, it just isn't much fun.

Squadron's completely different in that it's a tragic story about super heroes trying to do good, while Watchmen is about a bunch of crazy fools.  And the ending is soooo anti-climatic.

The original Squadron Supreme mini series has never garnered the same amount of critical praise that Watchmen has gotten because it just isn't as good.

******

This is a false statement. It fits in with the other statements some are making about Squadron. The writing was great. Gruenwald went into great detail about the main characters. He clearly explored the full potential of the plot. You would see the effects of the Utopia Program all over the world. Tom Thumb was given a great deal of attention. The issue where he tried to cure cancer is one of the best single issues I have ever read.

Also do not care for all this bashing of Paul Ryan (and Bob Hall to a lesser extent). Paul Ryan is a very good artist. Perhaps not as good as Dave Gibbon. But look at Paul Ryan's work on the Squadron graphic novel with quality coloring and printing. Very good artwork.

Im not bashing Watchmen. Its a great series with really layered multi dimensional characters. But the idea that no other comic is close is what made me not want to give it a chance.

I think Watchmen suffers at times by the attitudes of some of its fans. That if you don't get it, or it doesn't speak to you (and it is hard to produce something that appeals to everyone) then you must not be smart enough or hip enough to get it. A friend of mine told me to read it, I read it, I was unimpressed and told him so (in a polite fashion, I am a Canadian after all) and he started being condescending, almost patting me on the head for not being smart enough to get it. He then broke it down and explained all the literary devices Moore and Gibbons used and I pointed out that literary devices such as the ones cited are usually used to add something to the story and the message and I believed that the devices were there to be there. Some had a specific intent which improved the story but others (to my mind) did nothing but show off the skill of the writer and the artist. He rolled his eyes at that one and rather than start an argument I just changed the subject.

Partly Watchmen is hurt by the expectations (though the expectations of brilliance are why it is still being published, right? If it was not an acclaimed piece it would just be an old comic that some remember and some don't), but I think it is also hurt by the fact it is simply not as good as some believe. If it speaks to you, great. If it doesn't, great. I just hate the implication that if you don't like Watchmen it is because you aren't smart enough to understand it.

That attitude doesn't come from Moore and Gibbons and I won't put that at their feet, that attitude comes from disdainful fanboys who are too cool for superheroes (and yet who know a remarkable amount of trivia about superheroes for people who profess their disdain), and want to use Watchmen to feel superior to other fanboys.

Squadron Supreme was well done but I don't think it was as well done as Watchmen. Partly because of the art and partly because Gruenwald played by the rules and tried to write a compelling story in the traditional style. He could have gone further in terms of literary devices and the like but I personally believe he chose not to, and from his columns and his other work I believe that he wanted the story to be front and center and not obscured by creative tangents.

His run on Captain America was incredible, making me a fan of a character I didn't really care about, though I would say he probably stayed on the title for too long and the pencillers he had near the end were not nearly as good as the ones he had at the beginning (particularly Kieron Dwyer and Ron Lim). Great art can make a good story look awesome, and less than good art can make an adequate story look like crap.

At the time I thought SS was one of the best darn super-hero stories I'd ever read.  The art was decent for that time and if I remember correctly, it was hampered by that horrible flex-o-graphic printing process  I thought the dailogue in Watchmen was better, but the plot/story was really nothing new, it just went beyond what the comics code allowed and I think that is why people liked it so much.  sex and violence.

listening to a piece of music
composed almost entirely of "sampling" and lauding it as a brilliantly
original piece.

****************

I was arguing this very point re: that Kid Rock song in the music forum last year.

There is no problem in someone prefering Squadron Supreme to Watchmen. I prefer John Byrne's Next Men to Watchmen.

Just because Squadron Supreme isn't as good as Watchmen doesn't mean it is a bad comic. It also doesn't mean Watchmen is the best comic ever.

Just because the creative team on Squadron Supreme wasn't as good as the creative team on Watchmen doesn't mean it was a bad creative team. It also doesn't mean the creative team on Watchmen was the best creative team ever.

But, regardless of taste, it IS a fact that Squadron Supreme isn't as good as Watchmen. Learn to live with that.

QUOTE: WATCHMEN and THE DARK KNIGHT RETURNS (which was heavily influenced by WATCHMEN) were the perhaps the first books to really "catch the wave" in terms of the shifting audience. These were books ideally suited for the faux ennui of that particularly vocal part of fandom that had reached a point where they really wanted to be reading something else, but instead of moving on expected comics to change to meet their needs.

That's IT!!! 

Thanks, JB for putting into words what had been bothering me for years about "the wave" back in the late 80's.  I was in my 30s at the time and was still picking up the odd comics here and there for entertainment.  I saw, but could not really understand the shift towards darker, non-heroic side of comics.  Until now, I did not understand the factors behind it.   Besides, I was a new dad, so had plenty other things to focus my time and attention on - so I did - and went on one of my long comics "sabbatical". 

No offense meant to those who like the newer, darker stuff.  While I may not care for most of it, I understand I am a product of another generation and my tastes vary from yours. 

Thanks again for the forehead-slapping moment!!

Andrew W. Farago wrote: I'm also curious about when the "haters" read Watchmen. I didn't have access to comic shops and was too young to have read it during its initial publication, but I picked up the trade early in college, before its reputation as the be-all and end-all of superhero comics had been completely solidified. Those who came along five years later (or after Time listed it as one of the 100 best novels of the 20th century) seem more likely to go into the book prepared to find fault with it. There are any number of classic films I've seen over the years where I wasn't blown away the first time I watched them, since they'd been built up so much ahead of time, but that second, more open-minded viewing usually lets me see a lot of what I hadn't appreciated the first time around.

I know you weren't addressing this to me, since this is my first reply in this thread.  Just thought I'd chime in on the subject.  I'm not a hater of WATCHMEN. I followed the series on a monthly basis when it was originally published even toward the end when the last issues were late IIRC.  I loved Gibbon's art.  Thought the structure was entertaining.  Thought the prose was wooden.  Didn't like superheroes not acting like superheroes as a commentary on what Moore sees (saw) as the subversive nature of being a superhero in general.  Even then, 20 odd years ago, I wasn't much for deconstruction.  I'm still not, so although there were certain things I liked about the maxi-series (what we called it lo those many years ago), it's a head scratcher to me why it's hailed as a masterpiece.  I often bring up SQUADRON SUPREME as a tale in the same vein much better told. Although I haven't read it in years, I remember waiting for new issues with the kind of anticipation I didn't have for WATCHMEN.

  I gave up Watchmen somewhere at the third issue, and that was as they were first coming out.  Just was too sad and grim.  Didn't seem like these guys were ever heroes, let alone superheroes.  It was clearly written by someone who either didn't get superheroes or at least someone who didn't much like superheroes.

  Squardon I dropped for similar feelings.  They were more superheroic, but just kind of nasty.  It felt like Mark was going around breaking the other companies toys, since the Squadron was so obviously the JLA.  If Marvel had been sincere with us, they should have done the story with Marvel clones, not DC clones.  It smacked of cowardice.

Responding to Al, responding to JB:

That's exactly why I contend that Watchmen isn't a great super-hero comic/movie.  It's an okay stroy about people, but it wouldnt' have amounted to a hill of beans if they story were set in another setting.

I like it, I think it's good, but nothing to make be go ga-ga over.

I prefer John Byrne's Next Men to Watchmen.

Me too.  JB's NextMen is probably the most under-rated series of all time, and that is saying something.  I think it is his best work ever (and I loved Alpha Flight).  I am glad to see it is getting all the treatment it is from IDW, and I would love to see it finally make it to the screen with JB involved and doing story boards.  It is incredible.  A must read for anyone, especially those 'civilians' who like Watchmen.

QUOTE: They were more superheroic, but just kind of nasty.  It felt like Mark was going around breaking the other companies toys, since the Squadron was so obviously the JLA.  If Marvel had been sincere with us, they should have done the story with Marvel clones, not DC clones.  It smacked of cowardice.

They were only superficially the JLA. Beyond that they had little resemblence. I think that is what Gruenwald was trying to do with the series. Give the Squadron a personality beyond being JLA clones.

Come on, Vic. We don't need the name-calling.

It's a weird thing but I can't remember how I reacted exactly to WATCHMEN the first time or even where I was when I read it. I do remember being more "into" the SQUADRON SUPREME story because it was more "traditional" for sure.

I think I was more impressed by the historical details of WATCHMEN, which is the power of the book for me. The impression of history, at least, is something that appeals to me in Pulp (Wold Newton) type escapades, so I always enjoy when history and strange heroes mix.

Come on, Vic. We don't need the name-calling.

******

Im sorry, you're right. I removed it.

Victor Rodgers wrote: They were only superficially the JLA. Beyond that they had little resemblence.

  Little resemblence?  Are we talking about the same book here?  I don't see how he could have been closer to the JLA without actually using the logos.  There were even brand new SS members introduced that brought in all the missing JLA members. 

  I'm afraid I have to disagree, strongly. 

  Beyond that, SS and Watchmen (and Kingdon Come, come to that) suffer (well, actually they profit) from telling stories that really shouldn't have been told. They involve superheroes* doing exactly what superheoes don't do.  In fact, doing what superheroes actively prevent villains from doing. 

*In the process becoming supervilains, and forever blurring the line as to what a superhero is.

Squadron Supreme was a pretty transparent riff on the Justice League. I don't think that was ever in much dispute, was it?

Hyperion=Superman

Power Princess=Wonder Woman

Nighthawk=Batman

Golden Archer=Green Arrow

Lady Lark=Black Canary

Dr. Spectrum=Green Lantern

Nuklon=Firestorm

Whizzer=The Flash

Which series was published first? Just out of curiosity does anyone know?

***

Squadron Supreme was cover-dated September 1985-August 1986.  Watchmen was cover-dated September 1986-October 1987.

Watchmen bored me. Squadron Supreme entertained me. That is the only
criteria I need to establish the latter as superior to the former.

But through that criteria, a Rob Liefeld fan could say Rob's a superior artist to John Byrne, for instance, right? Is Rob Liefeld a better artist than John Byrne? There must be some distinction between favorites/tastes/preferences and actual quality or at least technical achievement.

Maybe one reason is that it's pretty easy to read with the strict 9 panel grid? I'm not a fan, especially since the disgusting Lost Girls, but his overuse of 9 panels per page is a good idea, imo. Unless Squadron Supreme had that going too? And WM has a bit more celver transitions to read, ect.

Also, the art is a bit simplistic in it that I think you see alot of characters standing perfectly parallel to the camera. Which usually drives me crazy, but it gives the book simplicity and a sense of order and stylisation. Whereas, I didn't read Squadron, but from what I remember, it's overall "look" felt pretty disorganised. You could say the same about DKR, I'm sure. Because Miller's storytelling is pretty organised and stylised too. Just my observations. I think it's the simpler style of both books. Though that doesn't stop both from looking good.

Or maybe it's just cause it's the first thing published by DC with blood and rape in it? :/

But through that criteria, a Rob Liefeld fan could say Rob's a superior artist to John Byrne, for instance, right? Is Rob Liefeld a better artist than John Byrne? There must be some distinction between favorites/tastes/preferences and actual quality or at least technical achievement.

******

Oh just shut up. First you come in declare something a fact. Then you come in with this crap. Who the hell made you the person to decide?

Also one person should explain whats wrong with Paul Ryan. Rather than saying its terrible then leaving.

Does anyone else find it weird that Watchmen is drawing criticism
because the characters drew their initial inspiration from Charlton
characters,

*****

Has anyone done that?

I was telling my friend about how Nite Owl was suppose to represent Blue Beetle and he was shocked. Aside from Rorsach I don't you could recognise any of the characters as Charlton characters.

To clarify my comments earlier. Visually the Squadron is clearly the JLA. I just think thats where it ends.

"But through that criteria, a Rob Liefeld fan could say Rob's a superior artist
to John Byrne, for instance, right?"
-----
Of course he could. And it would be interesting to see such a fan defend his
position.

But regardless of how such a fan defended his position it still is a fact that John Byrne is a better artist than Rob Liefeld. The gap there is between them is abyssal.

Like someone else said, The title of this thread might well have been "Why doesn’t Captain Carrot get as much praise as Watchmen?"

Which goes a long toward explaining the voting by fans in Marvel's ridiculous Top 100 Marvel comics of all time. Jesus wept--McFarlane's 1st issue of "Spider-Man"? Kevin Smith's first issue of Daredevil?

Intelligent design, my ass....

What, that old stuff, Byrne?

Crazy talk.

Someone pointed out that it looked like the fanboys (can I still use that as a negative?) just went through their copies of Wizard and chose issues with "important" firsts--the above mentioned issues, along with first appearances--Falcon, Silver Surfer, Hobgoblin, Venom (cameo), Venom (full), etc.

 Roger Stern had one of the best runs ever on ASM--but there was hardly anything groundbreaking about the Hobgoblin's first appearance. So not only was the list absurd, it was incredibly arbitrary.

And Pedro you still refuse to answer my question. Who died and left you the person to decide whats better.

QUOTE: Like someone else said, The title of this thread might well have been "Why doesn’t Captain Carrot get as much praise as Watchmen?"

What an incredibly stupid false thing to say.

Our friend Pedro has said these things can be stated as facts. Im simply playing on the field he created.

Like I said Pedro is the one who started it.

I must ask this again. Why is Paul Ryan so hated? Nothing about his art is terrible. The printing and coloring on Squadron was not great. But his artwork was very good. His art on the Squadron graphic novel was great imo.

Most of Paul Ryan's stuff lost alot from being inked by others. His FF issues, the cover looks great but the interiors kind of went down a notch just cause of the inking. But that's just my opinion.

I think Dave Gibbons was more of a Curt Swan~

Super PRO> Captain Carrot

Broken Bicycle>SuperPRO

So when is this really going to turn into a Captain Carrot/Watchmen debate?  =)

====

Who Watches the Watch-hen?

It is frustrating when fans cannot make the simple distinction that what they
like may not be the best, and what they dislike may not be the worst.

As usual, JB sums it up. The thing I love about comics is finding the stuff nobody gives a crap about or thinks about and loving it. Micheline/Talaoc Unknown Soldier stories, Gerber's Zombie stories, HERCULES UNBOUND, SKULL THE SLAYER, and any time Brother Voodoo appears. Those issues are mine, they are part of who I am. Whether you like them or not, I could give a sh*t.

But fans want to piss on everyone else's "best" for not only not being good enough, it sucks. It sucks, right? Yeah, it sucks. Is it white boy day? Naw, it ain't white boy day. The fans dictate content by their verbal acceptance or displeasure, and the companies overreact wildly. Four variant covers later, the fans are displeased by the content. It sucks. But then the kicker: they still buy it.

How can anyone find quality product among inferior product when the readers have no loyalty to good work in comics--or barely know what it looks like (nor do the talent making the comics, half the time)--and the companies believe their own hyperbolic slaverings to those fans' whims?

Paul Ryan is solid as a rock. I'd read a Ryan comic any day of the week.

I agree. The Question was totally undermined as a character. Peacemaker was turned into a raving psychopath. Blue Beetle had some success as a character before summary execution. Judomaster just got his back broken not long ago to satisfy Geoff Johns' ego or something. The Web...who knows? Thunderbolt's big moment was getting knocked out by Jay Garrick (I think) in the original CRISIS, and he wasn't even identified.

I think Charlton heroes would have fared pretty much just as well as WATCHMEN, unfortunately.

Yes, Thunderbolt did. So did Peacemaker. And the Question had about a three year run.

Heck, the respective series were good to great. They also really fatally compromised some of the best ones, like the Question and Peacemaker. The results haven't been good in a long time.

Not the Web. Nightshade. Whom I just realized was the same Nightshade from SUICIDE SQUAD. I thought the name had just been appropriated for another character?

I wonder: anyone know what was the last appearance of each of the Charlton Action Heroes in the DCU?

Victor,

I really pondered if I should reply to someone who resorts to name-calling and agressivenes, but here goes a more detailed reson why Watchmen is superior to Squadron Supreme anyway:

Even if one doesn't enjoy Watchmen, for a matter of taste,they should at least acknowledge the level of technical achievement it really is. The overall design from the covers to every little detail, the sustained cold art, coloring and lay-outs never ever deviating from its self-imposed structure - not an easy thing to maintian throughout 12 issues contrary to what fans may think - the complexity, the layered aspects, the parallellisms. Gibbons and Moore really give you this very rich, very involved tapestry that had NEVER been seen in american comics before (or since?). Also a plus is that this is non-continuity and it's a closed story without any sequels or prequels, making it a unique experience. People don't have to go grab JLA#24 to find out about some obscure reference. The excerpts from imaginary books and articles also try and expand the whole experience. Watchmen is a comic that tries to be more than a comic. It may have its faults, it may not even achieve what it wants, but it tries and it tries spectacularly. Squadron Supreme doesn't. 
 

Finally, there are no Paul Ryan "haters" here. The only person responding with "hate" around here I can see is you. Paul Ryan certainly is a competent artist but he's no Dave Gibbons. I'd bet even John Byrne, who certainly is a more accomplished artist than Paul Ryan, would acknowledge Dave Gibbons is capable of things he, as an artist, would have a hard time doing!

At the end of the day, Watchmen HAS garnered more critical appraise than Squadron Supreme.

Watchmen is a comic that tries to be more than a comic. It may have its faults, it may not even achieve what it wants, but it tries and it tries spectacularly. Squadron Supreme doesn't.

*****

So what? Squadron Supreme wanted to be a great comic and it was. Dave Gibbons is a fantastic artist, Nobody has argued against that. I would put him above Paul Ryan. But you have people in this thread calling him terrible. Watchmen itself is a great comic. But in the end its just a comic and a pretty overrated one. I read it recently and I loved it. Its a great story with some great characters. But so is Squadron Supreme.

Is Ozymandias supposed to be smart or stupid?  It seems obvious that he's united the world for about 2 seconds...then we'll get back to disagreeing and fighting.  About something new, or the same old stuff.

Again, I liked V for Vendetta much better.

A thread that tries to be more than a thread on a forum that tries to be more than a forum on an Internet...

Ah, whatever.

It does Moore more credit to say he just wanted to tell a good story.

I don't think either Paul Ryan or Bob Hall are terrible. However,  I wouldn't hold up Squadron Supreme as an example of either's best work.

****

I wouldn't either. But it wasn't terrible and I think the print quality and the inking hurt it more than anything. Go look for images from Death of a Universe (the Squadron graphic novel), some great art in there.

QUOTE: For what it's worth, Squadron was my first exposure to Bob Hall, as far as I remember, and I loved his work in it!

Mine was the West Coast Avengers mini series.

JB, maybe I didn't phrase it in a proper manner but is it self-loathing to try to go beyond a medium traditional restrictions? Watchmen certainly isn't the only comic that does so.  If comics hadn't tried to do so, they'd still be all exactly like they were back when More Fun Comics was first published. 

Ray, there are 2 Pedros here. Maybe that lead to some confusion.

Matt, you are right, it is a pointless exercise. Thanks.

Come to that, where is Paul?

****

He draws the Phantom comic strip.

WATCHMEN is rightly or wrongly pointed to as a pinacle of the genre -- yet I agree with many that it is not really a superhero story -- there's no uplifting ending (even in the sense that a beloved character might make the ultimate sacrifice, it's sad but still an overall "happy" end), it's a dystopia, and the heroes are not human in the most positive sense but in the Jerry Springer sense.

DARK KNIGHT is slightly better but the final half is greatly influenced by WATCHMEN and it ends with Batman out of costume -- moreover, a more "superheroic" ending would have had Superman coming to his senses and *joining* Batman rather than duking it out with him.

So, is there anything that the mainstream media applauds that is truly a "superhero" story? I mean, there's more respect for SLEEPING BEAUTY and SNOW WHITE. They are considered classics of the form without having to aspire to be "more" than the form by deconstructing it

David Miller wrote: And the Squadron keeps getting mind-controlled and devastates the Earth.

Couldn't the same be said for the universes of Marvel and DC?  NYC is destroyed on a regular basis, so much so that Marvel created Damage Control to take care of the destruction.  Super villains regularly mind-control heroes and attempt to bend them to their will.  Sentinels soar through the skies. Fing Fang Foom has been known to try and destroy Japan and has ravaged parts of the US.  There are cosmic rays residing just outside Earth's atmosphere that can change a person's physical makeup.  Characters like Galactus try to eat your planet and Darkseid sends his minions to wreak havoc.  All of this, and I haven't even mentioned the vast number of alien races that would love to conquer Earth or outright destroy it and it's inhabitants.  Given just that information, is that a world you would want to live in?

The difference, of course, is the world view.  In WATCHMEN it's decidedly cynical.  None of the superheroes are altruistic.  None of them work for the common good.  In SQUADRON SUPREME they are at least trying to do good, however misplaced.  They learn that lesson the hard way.

None of the superheroes are altruistic.  None of them work for the common good. 

********

I think Rorscach did. He did bad things. But as the story went on I grew this respect for him as a person who would not compormie what he saw as right. I think he had changed for the better as the story progressed. Its not said outright but I got that sense after he got out of prison. Thats just my view.

Andrew W.l Farago wrote: Both Nite-Owls got into crimefighting without any particular "origin" event, and seemed to be in it to help the little guy as much as anything else. And I'm sure that Rorschach and Ozymandias both see themselves as working for the common good. It's all about perspective.

Doesn't really matter to me how they got into it.  The perspective of the series is where they are now.  Everyone, including Nite-Owl, is cynical.  Quite a few are self-loathing.  None of them are heroic.  An argument may be made for Rorschach, but I don't think he's a hero in the traditional sense.

Wayde Murray...

Do you think anyone whose family are hurt by a criminal should hate the police?  The Government for not instigating a military clamp down house by house search for illegal activity?

Superman's not infallible.

Simon BJ

 If I lived in Metropolis (remember, that was a stipulation in my earlier post) I think I'd probably expect Superman to care as much about my loved ones as he does for his own
************************************************************ ************************

Why? Superman does as much as he can to help civilians but to begrudge him a personal life and all that brings - priorities - is a bit unfair.

>A rot that has been infecting superhero comics for a long time now: I
cannot conceive of characters who are more noble than / am!

Wow. I can't conceive of a Peter Parker who didn't mess up, make some big mistakes, yet remain more noble than I, that I would be interested in reading about.

Exactly. Many characters in the DC universe have assumed that Superman was Superman all of the time over the years.

Whether I assume he has one or not, I still wouldn't begrudge him a personal life. Nor would I blame him for everything, possibly because I get pretty irked by a blame culture anyway. Case in point - someone trips on a pavement and then sues the council. Come on, watch where you are going.

Reasonable people would celebrate the good that has come from heroic actions. Unreasonable people would do anything less.

Thought balloons.

Erik Larsen wrote: It's nowhere near as good.

To you, perhaps. To others, maybe it's better. That's a pretty opinionated fact you're throwing around, there. Sure, it's presented as being more "literal" and "smart", but that doesn't automatically mean it's better.

I like WATCHMEN* better than SS, but I'm not going to go around telling people SS is bad compared to it. There's too much personal taste and preference involved for anyone to make a statement like that.

* In all truthfullness, I'm not a huge fan of either book.

QUOTE: Frankly--you might as well be asking, "Why doesn’t Jughead's Joke Book Supreme get as much praise as Watchmen?" The two don't belong in the same conversation.

What a load of shit.

For those of you who like Dave Gibbons' work, I highy reccomend Brave and the Bold #200.  Gibbons' work on Batman is spot on.  Pluse Brave and the Bold 200 had a much better writer than Watchmen did.

I put Dave Gibbons in the same league of artist has JB, Frank Miller, George Perez, and Alan Davis are.

Mark Gruenwald was a great writer. His Cap run had some low points. He was a writer on the book for a very long time. Claremont had some low points on X-Men.

During his time on the book he wrote the Scoorge of the Underworld storyline. He did the epic John Walker Cap story arc. When people mention great Cap storylines these are the ones that come up. Even the low points are fun super hero comics. He did great work on Quasar. In paticular the first 25 issues and the Collision in the Cosmos story arc. He did big ideas with super heroes while still telling classic super hero stories. But he isn't some british guy so he never gets that credit.

QUOTE: and Squadron Supreme had moments which were, frankly, laughable.

Really what were these?

QUOTE: You may disagree. But the vast majority of people who read both books DO agree.

Not according to this thread. Its going 60/40 here among people who READ both.

Well, it's not exactly like Time magazine named Squadron Supreme one of its Top 100 Novels of the 20th Century. Personal tastes are subjective (I liked both books), but there's no doubt Watchmen gets far more praise. In fact, that was the premise of the question that started this thread. I think even folks who didn't like Watchmen would have to admit that there's something there that made an indelible impression on many readers.

I'll have to stick up for Gruenwald's writing as well. His Captain America stuff by and large was great, particularly the Serpent Society/Diamondback storyline, the Bloodstone Hunt and the "new" Captain America. Gruenwald really explored what it means to be a hero during a time when being the "good guy" wasn't always cool.

Gruenwald's Captain America work did tail off toward the end of his 10-year run, no doubt about it. I've wondered if some of that might have been due to his health situation. In any case, like David said, it doesn't negate all those years of wonderful stories he gave us.

and only
a handful of people here are rating the Bob Hall/Paul Ryan art team above
Gibbons.
*****

Noone has done that.

Watchmen is a great comic. I read it last week and im still thinking about it. In fact its very simular to my experience after reading Squadron Supreme. The thing that grinds me gears (and I think others) are the people dropping their monocles at the idea Squadron is in the same class. Overall Watchmen would get a slight nod. Because of Gibbons and the superior printing and color. But they are in he same class.

Honestly I think Steve Gerber's Foolkiller is better than them both.

QUOTE: Squadron Supreme looked like any other mediocre Marvel book of the 80's. It started out strong and then fizzled out before it went anywhere.

Ridiculous statement, the later issues are the best in the series. The Tom Thumb attempting to cure cancer story was in issue 7. The finale was the best overall with a brutal final fight.

QUOTE: The series did not sell well at all and the only reason it gets any mention now is that Mark Gruenwald died and the stunt of printing the book with his ashes gave it some notoriety.

Or because people read it and thought it was a great story. I remember people talking about it before Gruenwald did. I know I hunted for the single issues for years. But oops I forgot fame and sales equal quality.

QUOTE: Didn't Alan Moore take over writing on the later issues of Jughead's Jokebook Supreme and totally revamp it from the ground up?

It's a delightful puzzle of reference to reassemble. I am however, offended by your insinuation, chap. Moore is above writing stories. Moore is a raconteur.  I enjoy spending years trying to justify to myself that his masterpieces had a profound aim. They are works, that haunt.

Yeah, I've been waiting for someone (thank you, Erik) to just post that Squadron Supreme isn't very good. I understand that it's a matter of opinion, but where Watchmen has incredible structure, compelling character beats, and memorable symbols and metaphors, all that I can recall from Squadron Supreme, which I've read much more recently than Watchmen, is stilted dialogue, stiff artwork, and a pretty typical story.

I don't think that I'd say Watchmen is perfect nor would I say that it's the most original comic ever, but it's characters and plotting have made it and will continue to make it withstand the test of time and to allow it to rightfully rank as a classic. There is nothing in Squadron Supreme that I feel is either original enough or particularly well done enough to be even memorable, let alone a classic.

And the Jughead Joke-Book comparison (spot-on) gave me my first laugh of the day. Thanks, Erik, 

Gruenwald and his artists were aiming for teens and pre-teens with their
comic, and I don't think I'd even put Squadron Supreme on the list of the
best "straight-up" superhero comics of 1985-86. Walt Simonson was on
Thor, Miller and Mazzuchelli were at least getting started on their
Daredevil run, John Byrne was on Fantastic Four, Chris Claremont and
John Romita Jr. were on X-Men, Marv Wolfman and George Perez were
still collaborating on Teen Titans, I think...was Squadron Supreme really
on par with all of those books, as a total package?

*******

Better than Claremont and Romita Jr on X-Men. I would put it under the other books listed. I would put Watchmen beneath them too. But not being as good as Simonson Thor and Byrne FF is hardly a condemnation.  

QUOTE: which I've read much more recently than Watchmen, is stilted dialogue, stiff artwork, and a pretty typical story.

and the laughs keep on coming.

"Moore must be hung like sasquactch to have so many people riding his cock."

And your penis envy must be considerable, Victor, to be getting so worked up over this.

Ah, I get it.  Victor's playing a character.  Nevermind then.

****

Trevor I don't do characters. Its too much work for dicking around online. This thread has been seeing other creators getting unfairly buried. First Bob Hall and Paul Ryan then Mark Gruenwald and now Dave Gibbons. Is there a polite term for cock riding? If so I'll use it.

Is there a polite term for cock riding?

+++

What a wonderfully ludicrous question.

I think what people point to is Moore wrote an exhaustive script describing everything to the minute detail. Now, as stupid as that sounds, it also says Dave Gibbons, great as he is, probably could be replaced by Sal Buscema, Don Heck, Tom Grummett, Eduardo Barreto, Mike Grell or John Byrne, or just about any comic book artist with a "clean" style devoid of florish--a workman.

Is WATCHMEN infinitely better if Darwyn Cooke or Michael Cho or, classically, Jack Kirby or John Buscema had produced the art? Well, if the artist is relating Moore's ridiculously dense script, then it's certainly no different except for the style of the figures. And yet it does become something else because of the style of the more "stylistic" artists we can think of. Steve Ditko's WATCHMEN...

I think WATCHMEN benefits from the repetitions Gibbons manages to evoke, visually, in a clean style that makes the symbolism seamless. He's not just an art robot, but Moore made sure Gibbons isn't the star of that product either.

I didn't get offended at the idea SQUADRON SUPREME is compared to WATCHMEN...I didn't even blink, really. SS has a cult status as well, and considering when it was released, it deserves to be mentioned.

Again, WATCHMEN doesn't come close to clobbering my perceptions like the real pinnacles of the medium, for me, such as the "Church of Satan" arc in TOMB OF DRACULA, or John Byrne's FF 236 "Terror in a Tiny Town" or Miller's Daredevil stuff, CONCRETE or Gerber's Man-Thing stories...stories that shoved aside everything I thought a comic book was or could be in ways I wouldn't have imagined before reading them. Thus, WATCHMEN doesn't rate anywhere near them as an evergreen example of the comic book form.

As someone said earlier. Squadron did not recieve much hype or became that big in sales. It has developed a good reputation thru word of mouth alone. I can remember in the mid 90s hearing different people talk about it. I know I hunted for back issues for years. I never found the entire series. I got about 4 and enjoyed them greatly. But could never find  the others. I finally got the trade and was blown away by it.

I enjoyed he over all plot of the Squadron trying to save the planet by ruling it. The sub plots of various Squadron members becoming corrupted along the way. Nighthawk having to comporise his own morals to stop his friends. The Tom Thumb issues where he tries to cure cancer and fails. The second time going against his own morals and still failing. The issue with the Hyperion vs Hyperion fight. The final issue with the brutal finale where nobody really won. I loved it all. I thought it did some big ideas whil still have the sense of wonder super hero comics need.  

Why get mad at Alan Moore?  He's not the guy doing it.

*******

Im really not. I enjoy a lot of his work. I loved Watchmen, Swamp Thing, Captain Britain. Its a certain segment of the fanbase that put him on this pedastal. Thats a bit annoying at times.

Have you  ever read an Alan Moore script?  It's very meticulous and exhaustive.

I've seen A LOT of badly drawn Alan Moore comics

His run on Supreme (which is excellent, and highly recommended) springs to mind. Paired with better artists, those stories would've become classics.

Most of the people who don't like Watchmen here seem to have some sort of personal grudge against Alan Moore for all the comics that they haven't enjoyed
since 1987

Makes sense; I wonder if some of the negative reviews of Watchmen is merely a reflection of one's personal bias? I found it a great yarn back in 1986, and still do; that's all I ask of an entertaining comic book.

Some may dislike it for the same reason Moore himself does - because of all the utter crap it inspired trying to emulate it, copy it, imitate it, or just rip it off.

The comic in itself is a masterpiece though.

Andrew W. Farago wrote: Most of the people who don't like Watchmen here seem to have some sort of personal grudge against Alan Moore for all the comics that they haven't enjoyed since 1987

Poppycock.  I'm not the biggest fan of WATCHMEN because I'm not the biggest fan of WATCHMAN.  Not because I hold a grudge against Moore, but because I'm not a fan of deconstructionist clap trap.  Otherwise, you insinuate that the only reason not to like WATCHMAN is because of the effect it had on the industry and that if it didn't have said effect, it would be universally praised as being the best of the best of the medium.  Isn't it quite possible not to like WATCHMEN on it's own merits rather than falling back on the old saw that just because a bunch of people like it, I must be wrong for not liking it?  Really?  Do you want to go that far with you generalization?

Robert, Joe said I do resent the hacks not the originating work. You missed his point.

 And I can see his point of view. Watchmen was meant to be a stand alone. That's one of the reasons it was done with throw away characters. But then everyone went "wow this is how all comics should be done". Umm, no.

If Moore was dead, he would turn in his grave.

He's not, but still..

I think Moore's ending was appropriate. The "dark age" of the world was ending, and its new "golden age" is built upon a lie.

Rorschach would never have seen reason--his entire worldview is based on there being right and wrong with no compromise between. Does anyone really believe he could have been persuaded to remain silent? That is an example of a fan's thinking "what ought to be" rather than what suits the needs of the story. Not everyone may like the ending Moore wrote, but it is faithful to the story's premises and maintains the story's integrity.

Besides which, what is the point of Dr. Manhattan punishing Ozymandias? How would that change anything? Ozymandias commits an act of terrorism... and the world is saved from its own madness by an instant of absolute horror. WATCHMAN (if nothing else) forces us to ask the question, what does it mean to save the world? In this instance, Ozymandias launches a first strike of his own against the US, which is portrayed as a global aggressor. That first strike kills millions in NYC--but it directly prevents the death of billions.

Would killing Ozymandias and revealing the truth have done anything other than push the world toward Armageddon? I don't think so.

Sorry, but the ending was the ending. For my money, Moore got it right.

As for the thread's topic--

Squadron Supreme was a good effort at showing a broken world where the heroes were trying to put things back together. It played by the rules and even explored the limits of the superhero paradigm in making the world a better place--can violence really achieve positive outcomes in a hopelessly complex situation?

Watchman, on the other hand, was a game-changer. The comics industry reacted to Watchmen as something new, even unprecedented; whether it really was or not I leave to individual opinion. But it shaped a generation of story tellers, for better or worse. (And I would agree that there was much "worse" that came out of Moore's imitators than "better" but that is not Moore's fault or responsibility.)

Squadron Supreme was a good comic book story; Watchmen was something more (no pun intended). That is why SS doesn't get the praise Watchmen does-- it simply isn't on the same level.

Finally, with regard to the movie's ending-

From what I have read in interviews with the film makers, the ending was changed because explaining the creation of the squid--which, remember, involved the disappearance of many people and an interlude on an island not unlike LOST, with the creators ending up dead and a bit of foreshadowing as a piece of artwork washes ashore--would have eaten up a very large amount of time. Blaming Dr. Manhattan was tidier, not necessarily better, and certainly not because the film makers thought Moore got his own story's ending wrong.

Blaming Dr. Manhattan was tidier, not necessarily better, and certainly not because the film makers thought Moore got his own story's ending wrong.

I think the Russians coming together against the Dr. is easliy believable, he's the reason they are rattling sabres to begin with.

I personally think (personally) that if Veidt had died, Rorschach's sense of right and wrong would have been satisfied, if anything he would have been harder driven to fight wrongs from that point forward. And the world would have percieved him as a raving loony anyway.

Dr.Manhatten was able to see into the future. He obviously realised Veidt would be needed somehow and he worlds problems were just starting.

Nope, improper staement, Dr. Manhattan could see his own future. And if he left the planet, this just doesn't hold up.

Wow, talk about timing:

http://www.comicartpage.com/FeaturedDetail.asp?Piece=2138&am p;ArtistId=851 - http://www.comicartpage.com/FeaturedDetail.asp?Piece=2138&am p;ArtistId=851

The artwork is good, certainly does its job well; but it's not the reason why I enjoyed and remember and think about this book.

******

How can you be so sure? The art and writing on a comic are too entangled together to seperate. Especially on this comic knowing how much input Gibbons had. Its not a simple clear cut matter.

QUOTE: Nope, improper staement, Dr. Manhattan could see his own future. And if he left the planet, this just doesn't hold up.

Veidt was still needed. He may have been delusional but he was still a genius. The earth was at too delicate a stage for revenge for the sake of revenge. Jon recognised this. Veidt's ultimate punishment was living in the new world he created. Especially after his involvement was revealed.

At the end, Veidt asks Manhatten if he did the right thing.  That uncertainty will prove to be a punishment to the world's smartest and most arrogant man. Veidt does not escape unscathed, as shown by the end of the pirate story, as Pedro points out above.

Needing to see him killed or punched out is childish. You cannot kill the world's richest man without opening the events of his death to inquiry, and they cannot permit an inquiry without undoing the results of his mass-murder.  You want to see the mean ol' bad guy get a good solid punch-in-the-mouth or dance a jig at the end of noose?  There are untold numbers of entertainment avenues pandering to your taste for simplicity.  Enjoy them.  This one, I'm afraid, will not service your needs in that regard.

Oh, and Ted, did you read Gibbons' "The Originals?"  Y'know, maybe Moore did have more to do with the story's success than you're willing to give him.  This week.

Andrew Bitner wrote: "Sorry, but the ending was the ending. For my money, Moore got it right."

Well said.  I agree, and I thank you for your posts on this thread.

QUOTE: Needing to see him killed or punched out is childish. You cannot kill the world's richest man without opening the events of his death to inquiry, and they cannot permit an inquiry without undoing the results of his mass-murder.  You want to see the mean ol' bad guy get a good solid punch-in-the-mouth or dance a jig at the end of noose?  There are untold numbers of entertainment avenues pandering to your taste for simplicity.  Enjoy them.  This one, I'm afraid, will not service your needs in that regard.

I don't mind that. It's just that every thing I read that's considered mature is loserish like that. imo it's not realistic either to constantly end things in the worse possible manner all the time. Or we'd be living in an apockaliptic wasteland right now. :]

1. Because if he would do that to the United States what would he do to other countries.

2. Who said anything about him being dead or in jail? Unless Dr.Manhatten decided to help, stopping Veidt would not be easy.

Oh, and Ted, did you read Gibbons' "The Originals?"  Y'know, maybe Moore did have more to do with the story's success than you're willing to give him.  This week.

Of course, I read the Originals, and I liked it, but I remember the art more than the story ;-)

I thought The Originals was a good book. Gibbons has become a very good writer on his own. I don't discount anything Alan Moore did with Watchmen, but without the imput of Gibbons it would have been a different book.

Joe Zhang said:

Watchmen is kind of freaky and interesting. It's exactly what Alan Moore's good at, and what people go to him for. When I read it, I enjoyed it for what it was. I do resent the hacks who have turned the Watchmen into an industry-wide style guide and bible, though.

I agree! Well said, Joe!

Speaking of Squadron Supreme artist Paul Ryan....
I think he has done some of his best stuff in the last 10 years. His Swedish Phantom issues are very some of his strongest work, sadly those are not avaliable in the US. I am attaching some cover images here, in case anyone is interested...

Man that Phantom stuff looks sweet.

Too bad the current Moonstone version isn't quite as...appealing to me. I just can't get into it.

In the Watchmen film, a character apparently supposed to be Woody Allen makes a brief cameo appearance as a talk show guest. In reference to Dr. Manhattan and the jingoisms about how "The superman exists and he's American", ' Woody' remarks that "What I actually said was that God exists and he's American... and that if you're disturbed by the theological implications of this, don't worry; it just means you're sane."

The real Woody must have used that line sometime. Nice of the filmmakers to give Mr. Allen a nod, since later in the film there's a scene in Which Dr. Manhattan tells Laurie that she's "You're my only remaining connection to the world," and she replies that that's not fair; it's too much responsibility. That's a direct swipe from Woody's Hannah And Her Sisters. 

I was referring to the scene in Hannah in which Frederick(Max Von Sydow) tells Lee(Barbara Harshey) that she's his only remaining connection to the world, and her response is that that's not fair; it's too much responsibility. The Watchmen film scene with Manhattan and Laurie is reminiscent of it.

I haven't read the Watchmen book lately, but I assume Gene Kendall's referring to the "superman exists and he's American" line. The film had an original scene with a Woody character refer to it, and I simply wondered if the real Woody had used a similar line sometime, with "God". No confusion there.

My point in my first paragraph (and last couple of posts) is the bit of dialogue I quoted with Manhattan and Laurie, and how I think the film scripter added it. As I tried to explain, I don't think Alan Moore needs to crib from Woody Allen.