>Johns thinks Watchmen ruined DC with le edge
>implying Watchmen wasn't the key influence on DC's late-80s golden era
Explain this lads
>>83423926
O'Neil was the key influence on DCs late 80s golden era you twit
>people will reply seriously to this bait
Watchmen is a glorified fanfic with great pirate scenes.
>>83423926
I don't think Johns really blames Watchmen or Moore for anything, he's just using them as a scapegoat. He can't make Didio and Harras the villains of Rebirth, even though they're the ones responsible.
Moore took a gorilla dump on DC for Blackest Night. Called Johns a coon in his trash bin.
Now Johns is shitting on Watchmen. He really is the DC Bendis.
>>83426043
Speaking of which, was Blackest Night any good? I've heard it was kinda shit.
>>83426043
>coon in his trash bin.
Well he kinda is.
>>83426189
It's kinda shit.
But it can be fun.
>>83426285
Fun in a "good shining through the shit" way, or a "so bad it's good" way?
>>83426285
It's a shame too, because the concept has potential.
>>83426189
>Speaking of which, was Blackest Night any good? I've heard it was kinda shit.
Can't speak for the whole event, but I did like that Denny O'Neil wrote the Question issue of it. It felt really good to see characters I like handled by a guy who actually gets them perfectly.
>>83423967
Maybe because it's a legit question you mongoloid.
>>83423926
>implying Watchmen wasn't the key influence on DC's late-80s golden era
If anything, it's probably Miller's success on both Daredevil and Batman
>>83424025
>implying the Watchmen cast is anything like their Charlton counterparts
>>83424949
This. I also suspect Johns is butthurt over Moore trashing him back when he did the Blackest Night event.
Wait, why is Moore trashing Johns over Blackest Night?
I can't be bothered with finding the source, but Johns isn't saying Watchmen ruined DC. He says that other creators, even at DC, have taken inspiration from Watchmen and have lost some of the humanity that was in that story when trying to emulate it.
>>83427498
I find it funny how Watchmen was a cautionary tale about super heroes being too dark, but Snyder used it as an opportunity to make DC films darker.
>>83426914
Even if they behave differently it's still
- Detective guy with no face
- Animal themed guy with gadgets and flying car
- Gun toting vigilante
- Girl fighter in a slutty outfit
- Nuclear powered dude
>>83427498
Wouldn't blaming Liefeld or The Dark Knight Returns be putting the blame where it's due the most? And this kinda message is mighty funny coming from Johns.
>>83427608
>no face
>implying Rorschach's mask doesn't have markings on it that help him emote.
>>83424949
Johns is as guilty as anyone.
>>83427608
Rorschach has a face though, and the rest of that applies to a bunch of superheroes.
Johns is missing the entire point.
Watchmen isn't about capes. It's about about capes.
It's a meta view of superheroes.
You can't introduce into real superheroes. It loses the entire point.
The point of Watchmen was to see the logical end of cape tropes.
What if you had a man with actual super powers?
What if you had a man who believed in black and white?
What if you had the smartest man in the world deadset on changing it?
That's what Watchmen is about. It's a precipitation of cape comics.
You can't just reverse the flow and have the derivatives interact with the originals.
Johns should have just gotten Morrison's Watchmen knockover universe to do it.
>>83427785
He has as much a face as the Question does.
>>83427844
>Johns should have just gotten Morrison's Watchmen knockover universe to do it.
This. Everyone would've known what he was really talking about and it's not like DC is using any of the Charlton characters for anything anyway.
>>83427873
The Question has nothing on his visage. Rorschach has ink blots. Whilst unconventional, he's got a face, which is more the Vic Sage can say.
>>83427844
You calling Pax Americana bad, anon?
>>83428004
Fuck no.
Pax Americana was great.
And I wanted more.
But it's still a Watchmen knockoff.
All knockoffs aren't bad.
But that doesn't mean they are a direct imitation of something else
>>83423946
Holy shit! Someone here actually reads comic books!
>>83423946
O'Neil, Moore, or Miller aren't really to blame for the mess of "juvenilles trying to act like adults" that were comics in the 90's. The people who just didn't get the fact that they were trying to make comics a medium for "everybody" in a world that mostly viewed them as "kiddie fodder" (I.E. EC comics) are
>>83428004
>4*2
>not 3*3
Morrison why
>>83427667
Maybe it's just you who's seeing emotions in the Rorschach blots. Personally, all I see on his face are a series of pretty flowers.
>>83428004
so apparently you can read the entire story backwards and it still works?
>>83428108
Fair point. Sorry for being aggressive about it.
>>83428647
It makes more sense backwards, actually.
>>83428435
Rob Liefeld, Todd MacFarlane, Jim Lee, etc
They're to blame for 90s comics.
>>83428829
No worries, mate.
Pax Americana made me feel that something special that I haven't felt for a long time in comics.
I'd be a little defensive too if I thought someone was shittalking it.
>>83426659
>daredevil
>DC
