I checked a preview:



Reminds me of Attack of the Clones. When young Obi Wan says "Anakin you'll be the death of me."

Kinda eye rolling. The preview gets a little more interesting though.

Mike, in your opinion which one was entertaining and which two were whiffs?

Wow, that exchange has so much resonance once you've read Watchmen.

COMEDIAN #1 is written like they forgot the reference made to the Kennedy assasination in WATCHMEN. The character of Eddie Blake is also incredibly passive for most of the book, in both word and deed, and the stuff with the Kennedys at the beginning was just bizarre.

SILK SPECTRE #1, on the other hand, was about a young girl trying to cope with the demanding and weird life her mother is pusing her into and I loved the manga-type touches of the art that reflected the extremes of teenage emotion. The arc of the first issue even neatly coincided with the zeitgeist of the era, as Laurie takes off on her own just as the country is shaking off so many of its old traditions and standards. This could have been the first issue of an Elseworlds limited series about the Golden Age Black Canary and her Silver Age daughter and I'd be just as interested in getting the 2nd issue.

I loved the manga-type touches of the art that reflected the extremes of teenage emotion.

Highly influenced by Jennie Breeden.

It appears to me that the original series implied that the Comedian killed Woodward & Bernstein, and that he was just joking about killing JFK.

Brian Azzar-whatziz may want to read WATCHMEN one day. It's a great comic.

It's just lines on paper, folks.

It's just lines on paper, folks.

I imagine what he's setting up is to show how devious the Comedian is, befriending JFK, only to shoot him in the head later on. That's why the shit has such resonance if you've read Watchmen.

I imagine what he's setting up is to show how devious the Comedian is, befriending JFK, only to shoot him in the head later on. That's why the shit has such resonance if you've read Watchmen.

Well, considering that he's somewhere else when JFK gets shot, that means The Comedian would have to be in two different places...HOLY CRAP! The Comedian is Doctor Mahanttan? That's resonant, baby.

In 1963 Blake was in Dallas, Texas, nominally as Nixon's bodyguard, on the day that John F. Kennedy was shot; it is also implied, although vaguely, that Blake either was the actual assassin or knew of the assassin's plot beforehand.

Implied actions by the Comedian in the graphic novel are explicit in the film adaptation. Examples include the Kennedy assassination and the assassination of Woodward and Bernstein.

He was in Dallas and the book implies his involvement while the movie shows it. That's the way I remember it, at least. I'd have to go back to the book to make sure, though.

Future issues may or may not show either why Ozymandias gave information that was factually incorrect or that Before Watchmen is not just adding to canon, but changing it.

Chad Nevett: Well, if there’s an issue that will get Watchmen purists pissed off, I can’t think of a better one since Brian Azzarello’s interpretation of the Comedian seems to fly in the face of what we learned of him in the original series, especially regarding the assassination of JFK. In Watchmen, it was heavily implied that the Comedian had SOMETHING to do with it and, here, he’s actively placed away from Kennedy to prevent him from possibly saving a man that he loves respects and admires. Yet, oddly, besides that factual difference, I don’t think Azzarello’s take on the character is at odds with Moore’s, at least not ideologically. Of course the Comedian would be buddy buddies with the Kennedys! They’re fun-loving, ‘play hard’ type of guys, the exact sort that Edward Blake would be drawn to. There might even be something there about Blake’s cynicism and world views. He was always a bit of a bastard, but, when he was with the Minutemen, there wasn’t necessarily a suggestion of the crazed, dark cynicism he displays later in his life. Like America, the death of JFK could have really affected him and helped make him into the guy we saw in Vietnam. In that way, it seemed oddly appropriate — no less so than him being in on the assassination of Kennedy, merely something that produces a different effect, showing the character in a slightly different light. Was he always like that or were there events that helped make him like that? Azzarello clearly chooses the latter…

Brian Cronin: I saw it a bit differently in that I think that Blake was always a scumbag. I don’t think 1940s Blake is any different than 1960s Blake who is nothing different from 1980s Blake. All that has changed are his circumstances. Here, he allows himself to see the Kennedys and Camelot as his way out, a way to get past his crazed, dark cynicism. Only, of course, it ends tragically and only re-confirms what he always knows about both the world and himself. For instance, before Kenendy is even killed, Blake is more than willing to assassinate Marilyn Monroe and not even blink any eye about it. Heck, he takes his time with her after he does it! This is not some guy who was changed by Camelot – he only wishes he could be. But he can’t, because deep down, he knows that he’s the guy you keep around because he’ll always be ready to silence the “drugged-out blonde bitch” or whatever else that needs to be done and no one else will do. Look at his reaction to Kennedy getting assassinated. Is he upset? Sure, but look how quickly he adjusts. He just calmly notes the angle. “Ohhhh, okay, so they drew me out here so they could kill Kennedy without me getting in the way. Duly noted.”

I was mixed up on what we were talking about. I wasn't aware that the new book actually showed the Comedian during the assassination and post-assassination, either. Anyway, these guys talk about it:

He stopped doing the lines on paper so he could get a house?