The Shrine

I have read Kingdom Come about, oh, fifty times. Maybe more. It's one of those comics I just pick up when I want to consume a few minutes. I have always tried to pay attention to the backgrounds because Alex Ross put in a lot of subtle detail regarding the background characters - even giving some of them mini-arcs.

I was going through it last night, and I saw Spiderman, Captain America and Thor on page 154. (This is the TPB, which has a few extra pages that the originals did not.) They're in the middle of the top panel, under the legs of a silver guy. Lots of people probably already know about it, but I thought it was cool that after all these years, I can still find something like that.

I think I had seen a scan of that online at some point. It's really cool. I'm going to go reread that now because you mentioned it.

According to the Wikipedia page, Rorschach is in the superhero bar. I'm going to have to look for that later.

If you don't mind, fill those of us who don't know too much about comics what this one is about

Response to the mid-90s comics that were gratuitously violent and dark. All of the classic DC heroes retired a decade ago because the world changed, but they wouldn't. The new breed of "superheroes" are reckless and little more than gangs fighting for turf. Something big and bad happens, which gets Superman to come out of retirement, which compels the rest of the heroes from his generation to come back. Global shenanigans ensue.

The art is painted by Alex Ross. Every panel has the care and attention that usually only goes to cover art.

This is my favorite portrayal of Superman. Sine commonly says how boring a superhero he is because he's all-powerful and a do-gooder. Superman's appeal isn't in what he can do, it's in what he can't. Superman is enormously powerful with a strong sense of right-and-wrong. This compels him to do whatever he can to make the world a better place. But when you're all-powerful, it's not obvious what you should do, and if you choose poorly, your bad choice has huge consequences.

The Superman in this story is burdened with the responsibility of being a global leader. He is not comfortable with this role, and he is slowly pulled into decisions that make him less comfortable.

Its basically one of the finest works of fiction ever written.

My favorite was finding the character Chris said was "Ragdoll", but who I am still convinced was either Raggedy Ann/Andy.

Hearing that Alex Ross and Mark Waid were willing to sneak cameos from characters DC doesn't own (i.e., the Marvel characters Kup mentioned) only reinforces my belief.

Also, I agree about Superman. It's not actually one of my favorite writings of him on a personal enjoyment level, but I do believe it to be one of the best. His dark side is not explored often enough, and reading was the first time I ever really understood what a conservative, conformist, early-last-century-America mindset he can have (while still being a hero). I thought the fact that he was almost willing to kill the whole damn U.N. was a pretty powerful portrayal, and a deliciously scary one.

Batman's portrayal in that book, however, blew me away. I'll never forget the panel where you see his face for the first time in the book, and he's just grinning about what a coward Superman's been for ten years hiding away in the Arctic. Pure evil. I loved it.

Easily my favorite graphic novel to date (edging out Watchmen slightly - I enjoyed Watchmen's plot just as much but it doesn't have Ross's art backing it up).

Kupek wrote:This is my favorite portrayal of Superman. Sine commonly says how boring a superhero he is because he's all-powerful and a do-gooder. Superman's appeal isn't in what he can do, it's in what he can't. Superman is enormously powerful with a strong sense of right-and-wrong. This compels him to do whatever he can to make the world a better place. But when you're all-powerful, it's not obvious what you should do, and if you choose poorly, your bad choice has huge consequences.

I think Dr. Manhattan is a much better demi-god superhero, and any attempt to pull other superheroes like Superman into that context is a good move.

In literary terms, I think Dr. Manhattan's purpose is different than Superman in KC. Superman's purpose is to show how a person copes - or doesn't - with an enormous amount of responsibility. Dr. Manhattan never really struggles with that. His problem is that he doesn't really care. His character arc is complete when he finally sees the value in life again.

Dr. Manhattan exists as the sole super-powered superhero in the story to serve as a counter-point to the rest of them. One of the purposes of Watchmen is to explore what it would be like if there really were superheroes. Dr. Manhattan's role is to say, hey, if you had real superpowers, you probably wouldn't even be human anymore. That is, in order to have superpowers, you probably wouldn't be human + powers, you'd be a completely different being entirely.

Kupek wrote:Dr. Manhattan exists as the sole super-powered superhero in the story to serve as a counter-point to the rest of them. One of the purposes of Watchmen is to explore what it would be like if there really were superheroes. Dr. Manhattan's role is to say, hey, if you had real superpowers, you probably wouldn't even be human anymore. That is, in order to have superpowers, you probably wouldn't be human + powers, you'd be a completely different being entirely.

Which makes Superman's character make so little sense. How can a man so powerful not have a dark side? Or at least an apathetic side?

Superman in Kingdom Come doesn't become apathetic, but he decides not to deal with the burden anymore and becomes a recluse for a decade. He doesn't have a dark side in the sense that he wants to do bad things, but this Superman is clearly not a happy person. He is plagued with doubts about his decisions and guilt regarding his past actions.

Just read it.

Sounds pretty neat. I'll give it a shot

I think Dr. Manhattan is the first real and believable demigod superhero I've seen since Superman, and I love the contrast between them. Superman struggles with too much emotion and connection to the outside world; Manhattan struggles with too little. They are SPECTACULAR contrasts to each other, and I find the idea of the world Manhattan inhabits interesting - it is implied in Watchmen that he is America's main (and maybe only) nuclear deterrent.

Does this mean the U.S. never developed the bomb due to his existence? Does that mean that without him, America possesses no nuclear deterrent?

It's a pity Moore soured so much on the project when it came to Hollywood...he's probably not the kind to do a sequel, but I feel like the depth of his characters and universe begs it.

There would be no point to a sequel. The story was done, and the characters described. It was a complete arc. It would be like reading Y: The Last Man the whole way through and thinking "Gee, I hope they make a sequel."

Speaking of which, I just watched the first half of the Director's Cut, watching it with my parents, who haven't seen it yet.

I'm sure that's how Moore feels too.

But I'm sorry I won't get to read any more stories featuring Dr. Manhattan, at least not ones he would write. Most spectacular comic book characters have a chance at a series, but the Watchmen characters probably won't, ever - which might be a good thing, given that at some point some neophyte writer almost always fucks up the characters eventually - but I still wonder what could have been in a different world.

I think that is part of what made Watchmen such a classic - it was done one time - perfectly - and left as is. No one else came and retconned the characters and made Rorschach the person who was REALLY behind the space squid. No one turned Dr. Manhattan red for a year because he lost control of his powers. No one brought the Comedian back from the dead so that he could get his vengeance on Ozymandias.

I think doing more with the characters and the story would diminish its uniqueness and value.