WatchmenComicMovie.com Forum

That really is all that needs to be said.

As I'm here I may as well say I don't like the idea of the prequels. Regardless of how bad they are I know I will end up reading them out of morbid curiosity. And even if they're brilliant, it still feels "anti-Watchmen" to me.

_________________
http://www.last.fm/user/nomapple

The inclusion of smiley earrings, in unquestionable reference to The Comedian, makes absolutely no sense whatsoever, for two reasons - one debatable, the other downright obvious in my book.

The first:
Sally Jupiter was responsible for pushing her daughter into a life of costumed crimefighting and crafted Laurie in her own gaudy image, right down to the costume she wore. Laurie herself descibes the outfit thus: "With that stupid little short skirt and the neckline going down to my navel? God, that was so dreadful." (I.25.6). Why express such obvious regret at having worn the costume we're used to seeing her in throughout WATCHMEN when this newest supposed incarnation is arguably even more revealing and suggestive... somewhat disturbingly so when paraded on a teenaged character.

The relationship between Sally and Blake is a complicated one. She retained strong feelings for him in spite of the attempted rape and, of course, Laurie herself was conceived during their subsequent consensual union.

However, Sally clearly still harboured a degree of anger and resentment towards Blake during Laurie's youth circa 1966, as evidenced in her outburst in seeing him in contact with Laurie after the aborted Crimebusters meet. In the final chapter, Sally admits to her daughter that she "...just felt ashamed, I felt stupid..." by her feelings for Blake. If so, then why on earth would Sally permit Laurie to be adorned in extraneous accessories (said earrings) that do nothing but obviously invoke painful and confusing memories of The Comedian, memories that Sally is trying so desperately to conceal from Laurie back then?

And secondly:
Blake himself didn't even take to wearing a smiley badge on his costume until he fought in 'Nam. The symbol is conspicuously absent from his attire at The Crimebusters gathering in '66. If this alleged 'prequel' version of Silk Spectre II exists in advance of that meeting (if not, then why the complete change in costume outside of established continuity?) then Laurie cannot possibly be wearing those earrings as a tribute or homage to The Comedian simply because of the fact that he himself is not yet associated with the image.

Unless, of course, these prequels are going to seriously fuck with aforementioned established WATCHMEN continuity.
Are we going to now be told that the smiley badge - the overwhelmingly enduring image of WATCHMEN these past twenty-five years and all of the associations that come with it - was in fact first sported by Silk Spectre II whilst still a kid and that Blake decided to appropriate the symbol for himself as some kind of sentimental reminder of the secret daughter he could never publicly acknowledge? Sheesh.

_________________
@RealSlimCAvery

_________________

Because I'm not panicking over details I'm making up from an image that isn't even confirmed as official?

yeah, I'm totally the one that's acting weird right now

_________________
@RealSlimCAvery

I'm not panicking, merely attempting to do what the topic heading suggests:

Talk about the Watchmen comic book mini-series

...which strikes me as actually being about as far removed from "acting weird" as you can possibly get on a message board of all places, and it certainly was not my intention to cause you such obvious personal offence. Totally.

You just seem to be over analyzing every little scrutinous detail.

"The smiley earring doesn't make sense..." Would've sufficed.

Not every post needs to be a whole damn thesis paper.
Just saying.

Edit:

Just saying.

_________________
My Blog of Movie Reviews and Such

I'll be right back. I gotta go see a man about a mule.

NiteOwl, of course he's overanalyzing. We're geeks, it's what we do.

For my part, the earring detail pisses me off for a very simple reason: Silk Spectre never learned that she was the Comedian's daughter until 3/4 of the way through the graphic novel. Up until that point (after the Crimebusters meeting, anyway), she absolutely loathed the Comedian for raping her mom.

So if it's a prequel, then why on Earth would Laurie be paying such an open tribute to Eddie Blake? And if it's a sequel... sorry, I can't even bring myself to finish that thought.

_________________
This is truly a madhouse. And I'm the lunatic running it. I've spent three years wondering if I should be proud or ashamed.

Writer Of Wrongs, do you just google those images ?

Because I'm flabbergasted every time you post something with a picture.

_________________

"Over analyzing every little scrutinous detail"

...which is prohibited in the forum rules where, exactly?

Analysing (over, under and every which bloody way!) the details of WATCHMEN is where the fun's at... it's where the devil is, after all.

I'm sure a simple "The smiley earring doesn't make sense..." would not have sufficed for others and (I certainly like to think)would have rightly prompted an inquisitive "Why?" or "Please elaborate" from at least some quarter of this forum. If not... then what's the point of it?

Do you not care for those damned thesis-length Alan Moore interviews either? Wordy fucker, ain't he?

I've been told to keep it quick: because she doesn't know about the attempted rape before 1966... but then again, Blake wasn't wearing his own smiley motif at this point so the tribute angle still doesn't fit.


Me neither!

Quicker still: Yes!

So, I didn't read the article well, the one with the new Laurie design.

If that is an official picture, then this is a disaster.

I can only hope that design is part of some preliminary art simply being made as suggestion.

Otherwise, this is going to be one of the biggest facepalms in comic-dom.

_________________

Way to be mature Writer of Wrongs, some one says you need to calm down so you go on a hulk esque rampage of snark and douchebaggery... you showed us.



I agree, but there is no proof it is official, and it's from an artist otherwise not connected to the project.

_________________
@RealSlimCAvery

True dat. It's the forum's true function, no less. No more? Remember the good ol' days?
WoW has every right to react the way he did. In that light...


Fix'd.

_________________

Oh dear... Ms. Genkins at DC Legal has had to go and write to our chums over at Bleeding Cool for the second time this holiday period, now on the subject of that Amanda Conner Silk Spectre II leak.

"Oh dear" on account of this latest development seemingly granting the illustration in question at least some degree of legitimacy as far as the WATCHMEN prequels are concerned.

Smiley face earrings and all.

Well, I hope it's not the final version.

Or at least, someone catches the earring shit.

_________________

Okay, NOW it's time to start getting upset. We also don't know how far along in development that was. Has anyone considered the possibility that in the prequel Laurie hasn't finalized a costume yet and as such goes for an outfit that reflects the feeling of the era, including the have a nice day smiley? I mean, she's a 16 year old girl... they like smiley faces, that's not that outlandish to think she'd wear them.... especially considering it's the 1960s. We don't know how far ahead of the GN these stories will take place, so its possible this is just a costume she tries, doesn't like and moves onto a different design.

Keep in mind one of the themes of Watchmen was to decontruct heroes and most mainstream comics heros change their costumes regularly often times with disasterous results (i.e. Wonder woman, Cap->Nomad,etc)

_________________
@RealSlimCAvery

That might have been a fair point if the costumes changed at all through the various time periods of the book. To my mind, the only costumes that changed to any notable degree were those of Dr. Manhattan and the Comedian.

_________________
This is truly a madhouse. And I'm the lunatic running it. I've spent three years wondering if I should be proud or ashamed.