William Proctor:     Lindelof has been quite insistent that he won’t return for a second season, but he is quite happy for the show to continue in his absence.

Will Brooker and William Proctor

##### ***William Proctor:**    * {#william-proctor}

Lindelof has been quite insistent that he won't return for a second
season, but he is quite happy for the show to continue in his absence.
His claim that the first season is complete in-and-of itself, however,
isn't quite true (at least in my reading). Angela Abar might now possess
Dr Manhattan's powers, but the episode cuts off before we learn whether
or not she can walk on water after eating an egg that may or may not
contain his super-juice---which I found laughable, to say the least.
It's much like the ending of Nolan's *Inception* with the spinning
top---just as we don't know if Cobb is trapped in the dream-world or
safely back in reality, we don't know if Abar is the new Dr Manhattan
(although I think we can say that she is, otherwise what would be the
point?).

[![](https://cstonline.net/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/18.png){.aligncenter
.size-full .wp-image-7973 loading="lazy" decoding="async" width="1302"
height="728"
srcset="https://cstonline.net/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/18.png 1302w, https://cstonline.net/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/18-300x168.png 300w, https://cstonline.net/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/18-450x252.png 450w, https://cstonline.net/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/18-140x78.png 140w, https://cstonline.net/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/18-768x429.png 768w, https://cstonline.net/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/18-1080x604.png 1080w"
sizes="(max-width: 1302px) 100vw, 1302px"}](https://cstonline.net/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/18.png)I
do think, however, there are enough positives to take from the series
that a follow-up could be justified (which is not to say that it would
be necessary). I'm not sure where it could go, but there aren't that
many superheroes in season one, so maybe we could have an array of new
characters that don't wholly rely on the past (although I wouldn't be
unhappy with the return of Nite Owl, or a Nite Owl 3.0). Having a black
woman as the new Dr Manhattan might well be ideologically progressive,
and very welcome, but I'm not sure how well it would work in story terms
without treading water (although I'm not that kind of writer, to be
truthful). Perhaps *Watchmen* should proceed by looking forward instead
of looking back. The fact that masked vigilantes remain officially
illegal in the Watchmen universe, except when used by the government, it
may be interesting to see an emergence of new heroes that operate
regardless of the law. It's very early on in the comic that one of the
detectives investigating Edward 'The Comedian' Blake's death explains
that 'only the government-sponsored weirdos are active', after masked
vigilantes were outlawed in 1977. This is carried into the HBO series
where Sister Night and Looking Glass work for the police. I don't see
why we shouldn't see new heroes rise to challenge that status quo.
Perhaps there will be a need for them to so, as usual.

[![](https://cstonline.net/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/19-450x256.png){.size-large
.wp-image-7974 .alignleft loading="lazy" decoding="async" width="450"
height="256"
srcset="https://cstonline.net/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/19-450x256.png 450w, https://cstonline.net/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/19-300x171.png 300w, https://cstonline.net/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/19-140x80.png 140w, https://cstonline.net/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/19-768x436.png 768w, https://cstonline.net/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/19-1080x614.png 1080w, https://cstonline.net/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/19.png 1302w"
sizes="(max-width: 450px) 100vw, 450px"}](https://cstonline.net/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/19.png)What
do you think? Where do you think it could potentially go if another
season ends up being green-lit? (And I do think it's only a matter of
time before it's announced.)

##### ***Will Brooker:***

In the 2013 introduction to the Deluxe Edition of *Watchmen*, Gibbons
says '*Watchmen* is finite, as closed and complete as a varnished oil
painting or, perhaps, a delicate watch mechanism.' Ironically, this was
after the publication of *Before Watchmen* in 2012, so I'm not sure what
he was thinking: he gave the prequels his blessing, which I believe led
to a permanent rift with Alan Moore.

Overall, though I feel Snyder's movie is deeply imperfect, I am happier
with adaptations of the original graphic novel than I am with either
sequels or prequels. I still think HBO's *Watchmen* is an outstanding TV
series, that its political approach was bold and significant, and that
some episodes were incredible in their storytelling, but I wonder if it
could have been achieved with new characters and situations, rather than
as a 'remix' of *Watchmen*. The heart of the series was really the idea
that the first ever superhero was Black, with origins in the Tulsa
Massacre, and that decades later he helps his granddaughter, now a
masked cop, to uncover a racist organisation, a new incarnation of the
KKK. (By the way, the mesmerism technology didn't go anywhere after the
flashback episode, and I found Hooded Justice's hypnotic flashlight a
little hokey, too.) I'm not sure that Veidt-on-Europa, or the squid
hoax, were really necessary to that central plot; there was certainly no
need for the HBO series to be set in the same universe as Comedian,
Rorschach or Nite Owl, as they were barely mentioned. The other cops,
masked after the White Night, would still easily fit that revised
concept, as would an FBI agent and former vigilante, like Laurie. True,
without Dr Manhattan you would need another goal for all the 'bad guys'
to be hunting, and you'd lose the unique love story between Jon and
Angela, but it would surely be possible to substitute an analogue for
Manhattan, the first metahuman; perhaps a Cold War weapon who's
officially disappeared from Earth and been missing for years. Like you,
I'm not a screenwriter or showrunner so these are just ideas off the top
of my head, but I think even those sketchy notions suggest that it could
be done.

The advantage would be that *Watchmen* was left to stand alone, complete
and finished, as its author always wanted --- and as its artist says was
the intention. I think it would be reasonable to try to respect Alan
Moore's clearly-stated views about what I think is one of his greatest
works. In fact, it could be said that for Lindelof to tell a story using
analogues would be closer to the spirit of Moore's approach.

That said, I think Lindelof has certainly shown himself to be adept with
the source material, and I would be interested in seeing him adapt the
entire graphic novel from scratch as a twelve-episode series. If there
are to be more spin-off TV shows, I'd rather see stories exploring the
past --- the 1990s of this universe, or the 1940s, or 1960s --- rather
than an attempt to continue directly from this season, which held
nothing back and doesn't seem to me as though it needs a follow-up.

Sure, it would be fun to see Looking Glass again, or a prequel about the
crime-fighting adventures of Nite Owl and the Comedienne --- I read that
they stopped the Oklahoma City bombing in this timeline --- but I think
our cultural tendency to not leave things alone is unfortunate. 'Nothing
Ever Ends', we're told: that's not always a good thing.

[![](https://cstonline.net/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/20.png){.aligncenter
.size-full .wp-image-7975 loading="lazy" decoding="async" width="1306"
height="742"
srcset="https://cstonline.net/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/20.png 1306w, https://cstonline.net/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/20-300x170.png 300w, https://cstonline.net/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/20-450x256.png 450w, https://cstonline.net/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/20-140x80.png 140w, https://cstonline.net/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/20-768x436.png 768w, https://cstonline.net/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/20-1080x614.png 1080w"
sizes="(max-width: 1306px) 100vw, 1306px"}](https://cstonline.net/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/20.png)

##### ***William Proctor:*** {#william-proctor-1}

'Nothing Ever Ends' could be the mantra for contemporary Hollywood, and
by extension, other production cultures. I saw a tweet today that struck
a chord---not about *Watchmen*, but about the just-released *Star Wars:
The Rise of Skywalker*. (You and I have certainly spilled a lot of ink
on *Star Wars*, and your work is what inspired me to become an academic
in many ways, but that's a conversation for another day!) The tweet
contained a line that reminded me of your comments about *Doomsday
Clock* as nothing but a 'zombie', and I couldn't help but think of it as
a general critique of franchised entertainment in the twenty-first
century.

[![](https://cstonline.net/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/21-450x409.png){.aligncenter
.size-large .wp-image-7976 loading="lazy" decoding="async" width="450"
height="409"
srcset="https://cstonline.net/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/21-450x409.png 450w, https://cstonline.net/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/21-300x273.png 300w, https://cstonline.net/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/21-140x127.png 140w, https://cstonline.net/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/21-768x698.png 768w, https://cstonline.net/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/21-1080x982.png 1080w, https://cstonline.net/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/21.png 1146w"
sizes="(max-width: 450px) 100vw, 450px"}](https://cstonline.net/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/21.png)It
does seem as if popular culture is like a re-animated corpse nowadays,
more fixated on 'What Once Was', than on what could be. I realize I run
the risk of sounding like a disgruntled entertainment journalist,
bleating on about the death of originality and Hollywood's creative
bankruptcy; yet while I'm fully aware that adaptations, remakes,
sequels, spin-offs, etc. have significant cultural vintage, in some
cases going back centuries, I do find myself exhausted at times with the
endless repurposing of branded characters and properties. It's not that
the phenomenon is new, exactly---there were more remakes and adaptations
during Hollywood's classic period than there are today---but there does
seem to be an over-reliance on reanimating old brands, especially if we
consider what properties are being re-launched, retconned, rebooted and
revived, in an endless cycle of death and resurrection, *ad infinitum*
(and *ad nauseum*).

I still enjoy being surprised by a 'good' resurrection, though: *Blade
Runner 2049* shattered my expectations by a long stretch, and I
thoroughly enjoyed the Karate Kid re-launch, *Cobra Kai*. But I'm so
exhausted by Marvel films, and superhero films in general. Once upon a
time, we would have said that so much superhero content indicated a
'cycle,' but cycles are short bursts of cultural activity that end up
fizzling out as audience interest moves onto something else. I don't
think we could describe almost two decades of superhero films and
television series as a cycle. The genre has become far too embedded
within the entertainment-industrial-complex to die on the vine (although
I'm sure it's time will come, just as it did for the Western).

Like you, I have been wondering if HBO's *Watchmen* justifies using the
title, or perhaps more pertinently, the brand. The name of the series is
certainly important from a marketing, corporate perspective, acting as a
brand marker that might stand out in a crowded transmedia marketplace.
But it is of course entirely plausible that Lindelof could have made
this story without *Watchmen* as a title. I like your idea of creating
new superhero analogues in the spirit of Moore, but under a different
name, yet I also understand why HBO---which is owned by Warner Bros. who
also own DC Comics---would rather have as powerful a brand as possible
to target audiences that already exist. (Production cultures don't seem
to have yet learned that this strategy also runs the risk of generating
fan discontent and negative buzz well in advance of anyone seeing the
finished product.) I guess that it seems too risky nowadays to trial
something new without the support of a weighty brand signifier.

*Watchmen* is a special case, I'd argue. Your point about the comic
being 'finite' and 'complete' is important. Unlike the usual
'work-for-hire' contracts with comic book publishers, where writers,
artists etc. are paid laborers who generally do not retain ownership of
what they create, Moore and Gibbons entered an agreement with DC where
the rights would pass back to them once DC stopped publishing
*Watchmen*. The fact that DC have not and have no intention of ceasing
publication on perhaps their most successful 'graphic novel' suggests
that Moore and Gibbons were conned, much like Joe Siegel and Jerry
Shuster were with their Superman creation. I certainly believe that
*Watchmen* has been diluted by spin-offs, although I have some respect
for what Snyder achieved with his adaptation, especially the Ultimate
Edition (which is over three-and-a-half hours long!). But that is part
of being a fan: we fiercely protect our treasured objects from outside
incursion, even as we are intimately aware that these are symbolic,
psychic attacks. Yes, the comic book *Watchmen* still stands on my
shelf, and yes, I can ignore the sequels, prequels etc. and embrace the
comic as the 'one text to rule them all'. Yet I can't help but think
that the comic has been symbolically assaulted in some way, and as a
consequence, is no longer as unique as it once was. I feel the same
about *Star Wars*: perhaps the franchise felt special because there were
only six 'Skywalker' films produced over thirty years or so (compared to
Disney releasing five Star Wars films in the last four years.)

A line from Stephen King's *Pet Sematary* seems particularly fitting:
'Sometimes, dead is better.'

[![](https://cstonline.net/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/22.png){.aligncenter
.size-full .wp-image-7978 loading="lazy" decoding="async" width="1116"
height="574"
srcset="https://cstonline.net/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/22.png 1116w, https://cstonline.net/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/22-300x154.png 300w, https://cstonline.net/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/22-450x231.png 450w, https://cstonline.net/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/22-140x72.png 140w, https://cstonline.net/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/22-768x395.png 768w, https://cstonline.net/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/22-1080x555.png 1080w"
sizes="(max-width: 1116px) 100vw, 1116px"}](https://cstonline.net/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/22.png)

 

------------------------------------------------------------------------

**Will Brooker** is Professor of Film and Cultural Studies and Head of
the Film and Television Department at Kingston University, London.
Professor Brooker's work primarily studies popular cinema within its
cultural context, situating it historically and in relation to
surrounding forms such as literature, comic books, video games,
television and journalism. In addition to the numerous essays and
articles on film and fan culture that he has published, his books
include *Why Bowie Matters* (2019), *Forever Stardust: David Bowie
across the Universe* (2017), *Star Wars* (2009), *Alice's adventures:
Lewis Carroll in popular culture* (2004), *Using the Force: Creativity,
Community and Star Wars Fans* (2002), and the edited anthologies *The
Blade Runner Experience* (2004) and *The Audience Studies Reader*
(2003).  He is also a leading academic expert on Batman and the
author/editor of several books on the topic, including *Batman Unmasked*
(2000) *Hunting the Dark Knight* (2012), *Many More Lives of the Batman*
(2015).

 

**William Proctor** is Principal Lecture in Film and Transmedia at
Bournemouth University. He is co-editor on the books, *Global
Convergence Cultures: Transmedia Earth* (with Matthew Freeman, for
Routledge 2018), and *Disney's Star Wars: Forces of Production,
Promotion and Reception* (with Richard McCulloch, for University of Iowa
Press, 2019). William is a leading expert on reboots, and is currently
writing a monograph on the topic for Palgrave titled *Reboot Culture:
Comics, Film, Transmedia*. He has published on a wide-range of topics,
including Star Wars, Batman, James Bond, Stephen King, and more.

 


William Proctor:
 

Lindelof has been quite insistent that he won’t return for a second season, but he is quite happy for the show to continue in his absence.

PART THREE &#8211; AND INTO THE FUTURE &#8230;

William Proctor: One of the first things that came to mind when watching HBO’s Watchmen is whether the series would be as equally impenetrable to audiences that have no experience of the comic.

William Proctor:
 

One of the first things that came to mind when watching HBO’s

 Watchmen

is whether the series would be as equally impenetrable to audiences that have no experience of the comic. When I pitched the idea for our discussion to Kim Akass, she expressed immediate interest in the hope that it could plug some gaps.

PART TWO &#8211; WATCHMEN: THE TV SERIES

William Proctor: For many comic fans, Alan Moore and Dave Gibbons’ Watchmen is a sacred, seminal text, one that perhaps should never be adapted nor extended with sequels, prequels etc., or else the sanctity of the original would be defaced in some way—at least in the minds of purists (of which I am one, admittedly). […]

William Proctor:
 

For many comic fans, Alan Moore and Dave Gibbons’

 Watchmen

is a sacred, seminal text, one that perhaps should never be adapted nor extended with sequels, prequels etc., or else the sanctity of the original would be defaced in some way—at least in the minds of purists (of which I am one, admittedly). Although the concept of fidelity has been challenged since Robert Stam’s intervention in the

Messaggi di Rogue Scholar

PART THREE – AND INTO THE FUTURE …

PART TWO – WATCHMEN: THE TV SERIES

WHO’S WATCHING HBO’S WATCHMEN?