Originally posted by Branlor Swift
Gibbons/Moore had absolutely nothing to do with Before WatchmenThat's like Jack Kirby's corpse coming out today and stating that Final Crisis isn't canon
From now on, I am only using Siegel/Shuster's feats for Superman.
No flying, no speed etc.
Abhi is crying right now.
Originally posted by h1a8
No it isn't. Both Dave Gibbons and Alan Moore said it isn't.
http://www.bleedingcool.com/2012/07/27/dave-gibbons-dismisses-before-watchmen-as-really-not-canon/
Plus it's a prequel that contradicts the original storyline.How do we determine whether a source is canon or not?
Answer:
If the source contradicts the canon source then it is not canon at all.If two sources contradict then which one has precedent over the other? The one that occurs latest in the timeline? The original one from the original author?
Well Watchmen does both and BeforeWatchmen does neither.
You do realize that they had nothing to do with Before Watchmen and don't own any of the rights?
It doesn't matter what they say as Before Watchmen was confirmed to be canon to Watchmen by DC.
Stop being purposefully difficult.
Originally posted by Galan007
It's okay, because he'll just start using Supes fan-fiction exclusively. Supes>Broly>maximum power.
Originally posted by Galan007But stop looking at just their comments. It contradicts the original storyline. Maybe that's why they said it wasn't canon?
Exactly. Their comments pertaining to Before Watchmen mean about as much as me saying that H/P Doomsday isn't canon.
It's a prequel anyway, so the actual story has more say than it.
Originally posted by Rage.Of.Olympus
You do realize that they had nothing to do with Before Watchmen and don't own any of the rights?It doesn't matter what they say as Before Watchmen was confirmed to be canon to Watchmen by DC.
Stop being purposefully difficult.
I offered two reasons to support it not being canon. It contradicts the original storyline. Rebutting one doesn't destroy it until both are rebutted. Anyway, the way I look at it is that they have more say than we do. How do we know if a source is not canon anyways? Why aren't cereal box comics canon?
Originally posted by DarkSaint85
From now on, I am only using Siegel/Shuster's feats for Superman.No flying, no speed etc.
Abhi is crying right now.
That's not canon to post crisis Superman. Also your analogy doesn't fit here since this is a prequel and not a continuation.
Originally posted by Branlor SwiftWell I'll take their word over someone who never did anything with the series. They have more say than us.
Gibbons/Moore had absolutely nothing to do with Before WatchmenThat's like Jack Kirby's corpse coming out today and stating that Final Crisis isn't canon
No it doesn't contradict the original.
Dr M. says that everything is preordained. Even his responses:
http://static.comicvine.com/uploads/original/12/123441/2927965-1600412_5_super.jpg
This is reinforced by Before Watchmen, where the rationale for why everything is preordained is given:
http://i17.photobucket.com/albums/b52/qwirtle/BeforeWatchmenDrManhattan003-Zone-016_zpse64ab65a.jpg
Besides, they DON'T have more say than DC editorial, who says what is canon and what isn't.
Your next question will be, so why did Ozy try and cloud his future vision? Because that is who he is - paranoid to the nth degree. It doesn't mean he would've actually changed it. Just like Batman when he has contingency plans upon contingency plans - it doesn't mean Superman is inherently going to go rogue.
As for pre/post, every time a thread is asking about pre-Crisis, are you only going to use Siegel/Shuster Superman, then?
Originally posted by DarkSaint85
No it doesn't contradict the original.Dr M. says that everything is preordained. Even his responses:
http://static.comicvine.com/uploads/original/12/123441/2927965-1600412_5_super.jpgThis is reinforced by Before Watchmen, where the rationale for why everything is preordained is given:
http://i17.photobucket.com/albums/b52/qwirtle/BeforeWatchmenDrManhattan003-Zone-016_zpse64ab65a.jpg
Besides, they DON'T have more say than DC editorial, who says what is canon and what isn't.
I said they have more say than us. We don't know what D.C. thinks. So it's inconclusive at best. Again, how do we know if a source isn't canon when the editorial never confirmed it? Why are cereal comics non canon? D.C. owns the rights to them too.
Anyway, it contradicts the story in many places. DM is clearly shown using his prediction powers to make actions. What DM is that he can see the future and will make a decision. He can't change that decision.
So my scan, which also contradicts, is....not canon?
I refer to this:
http://static.comicvine.com/uploads/original/12/123441/2927965-1600412_5_super.jpg
Originally posted by DarkSaint85
So my scan, which also contradicts, is....not canon?I refer to this:
http://static.comicvine.com/uploads/original/12/123441/2927965-1600412_5_super.jpg
I already clarified this. You didn't read all of my post. I said DM can see into the future and make a decision. He can't change that decision. Also Ozy was phucking with his prediction powers at the time anyway.
Originally posted by Galan007But we don't own the rights to D.C. either. We have no power to say it is canon without proof.
Dave*melikeybuttsex*Gibbons and Alan*suckadick*Moore do not own the rights to Watchmen, DC does. The former may not like and/or agree with changes the latter made to their works, but their opinions on the matter are inconsequential.BW is 100% canon
But how can you change something when it comes before the story and not after. I can understand if it came after. Canon sources references past events. But there is nothing to reference as it came before and contradicts the original. If two things contradict each other then which one do we choose as the representative?
Originally posted by h1a8
I already clarified this. You didn't read all of my post. I said DM can see into the future and make a decision. He can't change that decision. Also Ozy was phucking with his prediction powers at the time anyway.But we don't own the rights to D.C. either. We have no power to say it is canon without proof.
But how can you change something when it comes before the story and not after. I can understand if it came after. Canon sources references past events. But there is nothing to reference as it came before and contradicts the original. If two things contradict each other then which one do we choose as the representative?
The most recently published one.
Further context from JMS, who wrote Before Watchmen: Dr. M:
http://uk.ign.com/articles/2012/03/17/wondercon-jms-talks-before-watchmen
Originally posted by DarkSaint85
Further context from JMS, who wrote Before Watchmen: Dr. M:http://uk.ign.com/articles/2012/03/17/wondercon-jms-talks-before-watchmen
That doesn't prove it's canon. There are still contradictions in it from the original.
Originally posted by DarkSaint85
The most recently published one.
No we don't if it is a prequel. It's not about the most recently published one but the one that occurs later in the timeline.
For example, Star Wars episode 2 can not be canon to episode 6 if in 1 Anakin got killed and never made Luke at all.
We use current characters anyway. So Alan Moore's version is more current in the timeline than the prequel is.
And for the 6th time. How do we know if a source isn't canon if D.C. hasn't confirmed it? How do we know that cereal comics aren't canon?
Originally posted by DarkSaint85
They haven't denied it. Do you need DCs stamp on every comic? Seriously?Things are canon until explicitly said so by DC. No one replied to your previous five attempts at asking because nobody beleiwved you were seriously in such a need for spoon feeding.
How do we know if a source isn't canon if D.C. hasn't confirmed it? How do we know that cereal comics aren't canon?
