Is the book as good as everyone says?

Who says its good? Certainly not /co/.

>>89707345
Yes

>>89707345
Just read it and you'll find out.

>>89707407
>redditors who hold the opinion
of the board above their own

>>89707345

The endings to both are a bit daft.

There's less differences than people like to admit, at most side characters get more exposition before they die.

>>89707345
I thought it was a good read. I liked how dense it was. It built a world without needing a ton of chapters.

No, but it's not a bad read at all, it's just not the huge masterpiece it once was

>>89707345
Not really

The book is brilliant, indeed, but I've somehow enjoyed the animated motion comic more.

It is great, but if anyone tries to tell you it's good because of the story or characters they are a pleb and you should disregard their opinions on everything.

it's fucking amazing, if you can't see this plainly you shouldn't talk comics ever again

>>89707345
Worm does everything it does a lot better.

>>89708681
If a comic book isn't good because of the story or characters, what is it good for? All that's left is the art. Are you saying the art is the only good thing about it?

>>89710146
The thing that makes Watchmen so great is its use of paneling and colonization. It's story is just okay, but if it wasn't for the paneling it would be a wholely forgettable book.

>>89710279
I do like the paneling and colorization a lot. I enjoyed the book, too, but it wasn't really life-changing or anything. Seems a fair assessment.

>>89710384
If you haven't looked into it very much, I would suggest checking out some of the analysis and annotations on paneling that people have written.

>>89710663
Will do, could always appreciate it more. Not something I usually think about.

>>89707442
This

It is well written/structured/whatever else you want to say but "good" is subjective. I didn't enjoy it much.

It's pretty good. Only fags think this board hates it just because it's mainstream.

>>89710882
>It's good
>but I didn't like it
>therefore its quality is subjective

>>89710958
Good to me is too strong of a term. I only use if it the objective and the subjective standards are both met. If it's just one then it's not good. But that's why I give context to my statement so it can be understood what part of it makes me feel like it wasn't good in case your personal definition is different.

>>89708681
>>89710279
Paneling is only ever good if it's masterfully used as a storytelling technique.
It's hard to tell an amazing story without great characterization.
What makes Watchmen so great is the sum of all it's parts.
tldr; your pleb

>>89710882
>>89711104
objectively speaking, you're confused

File: Watchman.jpg (42KB, 500x300px) Image search: [Google]

42KB, 500x300px

>>89707345

Watchman is one of the best Super-heroes of all time! He's super-powerful, even more powerful then Superman! He can go from Earth to Mars instantly just like Goku! His girlfriend is hot, there's no Superhero more powerful!

File: FROGS.jpg (1MB, 1390x987px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1390x987px

>>89711229
The story and characterization of Watchmen isn't the best, even just focusing on Moore's work it's not the bestthat belongs to Swamp Thing. But the paneling and colonization elevate it.
Excellent paneling can be used solely to tell a story.

>>89707345