Reviews 

5 Thoughts on “Before Watchmen: Nite Owl” #3

By | September 21st, 2012
Posted in Reviews | % Comments
Logo by Tim Daniel

JMS and Andy Kubert send Rorschach to church, Dan Dreiberg to bed, Hollis Mason to drink, and readers everywhere to pick up something, anything, besides this book.

Written by J. Michael Straczynski
Illustrated by Andy Kubert

“A man like you loves a mystery.”

1. Why is Dreiberg only sort of the focus?

The book I’ve been reading is called “Before Watchmen: Nite Owl,” right? Because it feels more like JMS is trying to write “Before Watchmen: Everybody” in these pages. Sure, Nite Owl is the main character, but almost half the book is spent on Rorschach who, in case JMS didn’t notice, has his own book to waste our time with. Is Dreiberg just too dull of a character to focus four issues on? Did JMS’s Rorschach pitch get rejected, and so he just incorporated into this story. Ditto his “Minutemen” pitch, which is why Hollis Mason is such an important character. To be fair, Mason is a logical support character. (See below)

2. Hollis, dragged through the mud

JMS really wants to take that bastard Mason down a notch, for reasons I don’t really understand. In #1, he was a gun-toting nervous nellie, and here he’s drinking in the morning. I really don’t understand where this comes from, or even what purpose it holds, story wise. Did someone named Mason pick on JMS as a kid?

3. Easy tropes, taken easy places

The hooker with the heart of gold is one of the most overused tropes in storytelling, and hypocrite preacher is only slightly behind it, and both are the defining characteristics of the non-superhero characters here. Both lead to absurd scenes, like Dan losing his virginity to a madame, both of whom try having sex with their masks on, or Rorschach’s Ginsberg quoting evangelical having a basement full of bodies. This is paint by numbers storytelling, and JMS managed to confuse the numbers.

4. Kubert nails the tone, but…

I really can’t fault Andy Kubert for anything here. In our review of the first issue, my co-hort David didn’t love what Kubert did, but I maintain that he, out of all the artists, nails the tone of the original “Watchmen” the best. He’s not aping it, or trying to be Dave Gibbons, but his pencils give the same general feel that were present originally. This is, probably, in part to the fact that JMS is trying to write the most Moore-ish of any of the series writers as well. This is supposed to be the “throwback” book, and on the art side at least, he nails it.

5. …JMS drops the ball

But good golly, this is a terrible comic. Characterization is so far off for everyone that the book feels like poor fan fiction, not an officially sanctioned prequel. Sure, Dan wasn’t a lothario, but here he’s a meek virgin who is so enthralled with this pretty lady that he goes from vigilante crimefighter to “guy with nothing better to do but design and construct, on the spot, a sort of rope-based drowning in a toilet mechanism.” If him thinking with his dick was presented as a bad thing, that would be one thing, but that would mean this comic would make sense. And lord knows that isn’t the case!

Final Verdict: 2.0 – Avoid at all costs


Brian Salvatore

Brian Salvatore is an editor, podcaster, reviewer, writer at large, and general task master at Multiversity. When not writing, he can be found playing music, hanging out with his kids, or playing music with his kids. He also has a dog named Lola, a rowboat, and once met Jimmy Carter. Feel free to email him about good beer, the New York Mets, or the best way to make Chicken Parmagiana (add a thin slice of prosciutto under the cheese).

EMAIL | ARTICLES