Is there a better comic book?

Is there a better comic book?

Yes.

No.

Maybe.

I don't know.

Can you repeat the question?

Tell us what you liked about it.

You're Not The Boss of Me Now

Doomsday Clock

This

Doomsday Clock is the rare sequel that surpasses the original in a every imaginable way.

I haven't actually read it yet. It's on my list, since Doomsday Clock and all, but main priority right now is reading everything for the New 52 Batman and Superman Families.

That's not JLA/Avengers.

I love you.

V for Vendetta is leaps and bounds ahead of Watchmen.

so is Miracleman, and From Hell, and Promethea, and most of Moore's comics

It was Powerful and Iconic and Necessary.

the superior spider man

Final Crisis.

The Unfunnies

You're being too specific, it's getting hard to shitpost!

This.

Watchment is for brainlets.

Final Crisis is for real brains.

Grant you meta scottish shitlord fuck off

>reading THE best superhero comic of all time because some twat is making an inferior sequel that completely destroys the point of the original

Writing is pretty much on the same level of quality.

>A Moorefag trap poorly explained to me why I should hate Watchmen 2
Oh.

>Writing is pretty much on the same level of quality.
Bro, come on. Get some taste.

someone who has read Swang thing knows that yes.

Sandman

Ay cunt! Ay wrote meself inna web forum wunce 'n nuw em stuck enside em

...

Hellboy

I would like to read Swang Thing, it's a erotic comic featuring a monster or something?

>jewcomics about holocaust higher than anything Moore
wow

if you'll notice, the list overall has a pretty clear bias towards writer/artists, Miller didn't even make the list, and Love and Rockets is on there like five times

Yes

>Writing is pretty much on the same level of quality.
this meme has gone too far

Yes. Yes it is. Every other page is a joke about how much Wood he has

Yes, Watchmen by Priest.

This right here. Fuck you, it's a comic book.

>why isn't this a better comic book?


Fixed.

Yes, it's still a great comic both in terms of writing and visuals. It's also one of those comics that you'll almost always notice something new on the re-reads which is another great thing about it. It's a shame DC scammed Moore/Gibbons and we'll never get a sequel or prequel like they intended. Instead, we got mediocre trash like Before Watchmen and Doomsday Clock.

I liked V for Vendetta but I always found Miracleman and Watchmen to be much better than it. That might be because it felt too much like Moore's anarchy wet dream and I liked the characters in Watchmen a lot more.

>Writing is pretty much on the same level of quality.
The bait that never fails

I have taste, only it's not shit taste like the taste of impressionable literary neophytes a.k.a. Moorefags.

Good way to cope.

All of you are missing Watchmen's closest competitor. Pic related.

Ellis wishes

Ok, why do you think Doomsday Clock is even a fraction of the quality of Watchmen? I have my reasons for why I like Watchmen and think Doomsday Clock is kind of bland, I just want to hear your thoughts.

Watchmen is better for the main arc. Transmet stomps on all the background and side arcs. Transmet actually takes time to tell cool, short little side-stories that humanize the setting outside of the main characters. Plus it has better humor.

keep going, this is hilarious

Oh, I have been asking where's the supposed quality disparity between the 2 for several threads now, I'm only redirected to that trap's twitter and how supposedly the 1st issue of one is more effective at story telling than the other with no specifics, only blanket statements like that.

Don't get me wrong, I don't think Doomsday Clock is great, only that Watchmen is comparable, they're okay pastimes as reading goes.

If you could share one artifact of each book and specifically point out the supposed quality disparity, I'll do the same for you, as nobody has been able to provide one.

Oh, mind you, Moore's trademark grandiloquent palaver doesn't count as quality.

>grandiloquent palaver

>It's only okay when Moore does it.
Hmm typical.

point out Moore uses big words to sounds smart, please

It's not that he uses big words, geez, are you illiterate?

>Their enmity can only be measured in the skipped heart beats of distant seismographs
Or something like that.

so you don't have an example, you're just memeing because you're a pretentious cunt

But, I just gave you an example?

Welp, once again Moorefags prove themselves to be dumb.

Sandman
Moore's Swamp Thing
Hellboy

Wait, have you ever read anything Moore, that wasn't Watchmen?

Lmao, no wonder.

There's just so many iconic scenes in Watchmen that makes such an assertion false. It's not just the writing that makes the comic great, Gibbons art and Moore's script for it is filled with purpose and symbolism that doesn't beat you over the fucking head like that Rorschach test in Doomsday Clock. It's one of those comics that I always notice something new every time I read it and it really enhances the writing. The paneling alone in Fearful Symmetry makes Watchmen notable. the writing itself is also pretty great. Each character has their own unique voice and are written in a way that make them sympathetic to some degree. As a deconstruction, Watchmen does a great job since it's doesn't just try to be a deconstruction. It actually has a story to tell and it's told in a way that makes it memorable. The extra material at the end of each book further enhances the storytelling in Watchmen.

Doomsday Clock on the other hand is a derivative and mediocre fanfiction written by someone who has created very little that can be considered quality. First of all, the very concept of having the Watchmen universe crossover with the main DC universe is creatively bankrupt. It's quite clear the book was created as a corporate mandate, especially considering the new buzz about the HBO show since they did the exact same thing with Before Watchmen. The writing also lacks any sort of subtlety and must spell out everything as obviously as possible. The repeated usage of the Rorschach tests immediately followed by the Wayne deaths or Ozymandias explaining his namesake being the most obvious examples. The art is decent but pales in comparison to Gibbon's art, especially when we've already caught a couple errors. Nuschach's dialogue makes him sound like a retard and Ozymandias' voice doesn't fare much better. Johns can't write political references either, the beginning of Doomsday Clock was just embarrassing because of how hamfisted it was.

Transmetropolitan.

Pretty much any 80s issue of Uncanny X-Men.

John Byrne's run on Wolverine.

SinCity: A Dame To Kill For.

>Their enmity can only be measured in the skipped heart beats of distant seismographs
What's this from? Because I don't see what's wrong that.

My friend, this is lifted straight from those other threads, even from that trap himself, not specificity, only accolades.

Not helping your cause.

I'll agree Gibbons' art is miles better, that's the closest to an objective statement you've got.

And the closest to being specific is the beginning of DC vs WM.

What makes each beginning so qualitatively different in painting a socio-political picture? What makes WM's opening not hamfisted?

Oh, I'll also agree it's derivative, but that in itself isn't a disadvantage for the purpose of the story.

Of course you don't, you probably think it sounds rad.

For The Man Who Has Everything.

it's not even in the top 3 of moore's best let alone in general

don't get me wrong though it's still better than 99% of capeshit and abominations like before watchmen and doomsday clock

this unironically

100% fact.

80s X-Men had some all-time classic arcs, but c'mon... Wolverine couldn't get through a battle without mentioning his adamantium claws EVERY. FUCKING. TIME.

Claremont was brilliant with relationships, but fight dialogue was no his strong suit.

AH'M INVULNERABLE WHEN AH'M BLASTIN'

When it comes to Byrne's run on Wolverine, he barely mentioned it. His stories in Madripoor were some brilliant stories with entertaining.

I'll agree that Claremont's dialog in battles wasn't the best, but I'll say and stick to the idea that it beats anything Allan Moore has ever written. Allan Moore's dialog is hackney at best, cringe inducing at worst over the years.

The Filth, anybody?

That's not even the best DC/Marvel crossover

>My friend, this is lifted straight from those other threads, even from that trap himself, not specificity, only accolades
What, you want me to list all the moments? The only reason I'm being kind of general because Watchmen is absolutely filled with moments like it. The very first scene of the first issue of the Comedian's death is one of the best openers in comics and immediately sets the tone of the book. Rorschach silently discovering the Comedian's identity through actual detective work immediately makes him more smartly written than most other supposed "detective" characters out there. I could go on, but we'd be here all day.

>I'll agree Gibbons' art is miles better, that's the closest to an objective statement you've got.
You need to remember that the visuals wasn't just Gibbons work, Moore provided detailed scripts and made sure each panel was absolutely filled with relevant details.

>What makes WM's opening not hamfisted?
Moore didn't try to be topical. Nixon wasn't some caricature, his portrayal wasn't even that negative. When he was shown, he was shown as careful, contemplative, and quite aware of the situation the world was in. That scene of him with the nuclear football was great and didn't need to rely on hackneyed political commentary to be as such.

>Oh, I'll also agree it's derivative, but that in itself isn't a disadvantage for the purpose of the story.
It is in this context. Johns is not a good writer. he writes the characters in Watchmen as though he was a child given another person's toys. Even though it hasn't been revealed and it's relatively early in the story, I am absolutely certain that the reasons for why Nuschach acts exactly like Rorschach or why the Comedian is "alive" will be incredibly stupid. If it's not I'll eat crow but considering this is the same man that wrote Darkseid War I'm pretty confident in my assumption.

Moore also let Gibbons go wild because he knew he was so good.

people not giving Gibbons enough credit for Watchmen always irks me

I'm not trying to downplay Gibbons, just wanted to say that Moore had at least some part in the visuals since it was a collaborative effort.

can't really discount how the coloring in Watchmen is leagues better than the bog-standard job in Doomsday Clock

Yeah.

Also define better, because I enjoyed Kirby's Fourth World and Ditko's ASM far more than Watchmen. I resepct it, but whatever.

While I do love Watchmen I think Moore's (and later Gaiman's) Miracleman is better in a few fundamental ways. It's not as well written as Watchmen, few If any comics are written that perfectly for the medium, but it's the ending that sells Miracleman for me.

Watchmen ends with a question, did Ozy trick the planet into world peace. An interesting question, but if you try to answer it with a yes or a no (as John's is finding out) it isn't very interesting. The question is interesting, but the world isn't. At the end of Watchmen the age of superheroes is over. In Miracleman Moore takes it into a whole new area. The superheroes declare (arguably force) utopia onto the world and set themselves up as gods. It still ends with a question, did Miracleman do the right thing, but it takes superheroes to a far more interesting conclusion. And then Gaiman goes and writes a whole series about the utopia, its golden age.

Plus, no one in Watchmen is likeable. That's not nessesarily a bad thing. But every character is cold, broken and miserable. Miracleman is a bright, old, insanely positive 1950s superhero ripped from the pages of his world and into the dark, dreary 1980s. You feel for him, you can feel for him during his slow descent that you can't with Rorschach or the Comedian.

>What, you want me to list all the moments?
No, I asked for one, comparatively.

>I could go on
With the accolades? Yes you could, it's easy.

>You need to remember
Moore was known for letting his artists free, as such, I only referred to his skill.

>Moore didn't try to be topical.
Moore not trying to be topical? Is WM not the epitome of topical?

Surely that was no accident.

>Nixon wasn't some caricature
And was there any caricature in DC? Did Johns not paint a holistic, well balanced, non-partisan picture in that intro? So much that people laughed when he criticized then left only to be mad when Nushach criticized the right too? What's is so unironically hamfisted that isn't comparable to the satiric Rorschach himself?

>It is in this context.
No, it's not, it's a tool for the narrative.

I'm not arguing that Johns is good, only that he's a good baby sitter, good enough that he passes the litmus test to play pretend to be Moore.

I'll agree about Darkseid War, Ugh. What a piece of shit.

Fabok's art was nice tho.

Everything in this post is just the worst

I want you to re-evaluate your entire life

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

I tried reading some Classic X-Men and it just seemed like run-of-the-mill mediocre cape comics

>No, I asked for one, comparatively.
Which I just did with the reply and you completely ignored.

>Is WM not the epitome of topical?
Hell no. Outside of some of the Cold War setting, it's was far more alternate reality. Making Nixon president was the least topical thing about it.

>And was there any caricature in DC?
>Undeplorables
>Make America Safe Again
>President golfing
>North Korea
>All in the first few pages
Caricature is the wrong word, but it still felt like Johns looked at some headlines and clumsily inserted them into the book to try and make his books seem more relevant.

why are Moorefags so butthurt about other writers being better than Moore?

Very out-of-date list. Clearly more interested in the concept of "cartoonist-as-auteur" and innovations in style rather than overall story/characters/art-progression/etc.

because invariably whoever is claimed to be better than Moore is, in fact, not

you'll notice how it's all fairly mainstream capeshit and British Invasion stuff being put forward.

the date's at the bottom

Doomsday Clock took place in 92 but all the references were to 17 stuff was his big fuck up. (though President golfing is always a thing and Make America Great Again was a Reagan slogan too)

You didn't compare dialog, writing nor context, what was your specific example and comparison? I've been doing the questioning by narrowing down your broad strokes and you still haven't given me an answer, what is topical of DC outside the initial political setting and how is said political setting and the way it's represented any different?

Denial is sweet.

look user, you want to say Love and Rockets or Black Hole or something is better than Watchmen, go ahead and we can have that discussion. Don't come at me with fucking Claremont X-Men.

I wish I had standards this low.

Johnsfags everyone

Not a Johnsfag by any stretch, in fact, hate most of his stuff.

Still, it's disingenuous to pretend WM is any better than the decent DC.

no need to pretend

Oh well who doesn't like that guy.

Is there a bigger hack writer?

I'm never not amazed at he being dumb enough to wear that.

Of course there is a better comic. This one right here. Written by a award winning novelist. It has amazing art and dialogue with a compelling and enriching story that will make you question everything about it.

Johns is the worst writer employed by the Big 2 including Rivera, at least she has the excuse of it being her first time in the medium

Plus at least she's horrible enough to be entertaining.

Both of you examples are better than Watchmen, also.

I would say Akira is better than Watchmen (or, honestly, any story ever told. Sorry, that's just my bias. It's my favorite story.) because it's not up it's own ass with symbolism, symmetry, and moral ambiguity. I do love Watchmen a great deal, though.

Also, fuck Doomsday Clock.