Monday, May 13, 2013

Betty & Veronica Are The Little Mermaids

Comic Book Resources posted exclusive cover images from BETTY & VERONICA #267, which will feature a "Little Mermaid" storyline. Both of them are pretty nice, but comic book artist Fiona Staples has a flippin' excellent variant cover featuring our favorite two Riverdale girls that's too good not to share. Plus, check out that little Jughead flounder!!!

Here is a summary of that issue's story:
BETTY AND VERONICA #267: Betty and Veronica in “Little Mermaids” – The storybook series rolls on, this time with Betty and Veronica as mermaid princesses in an aquatic adventure! Betty is unhappy with her life under the sea and wishes to be a part of the human world—much to the chagrin of her father, King Tritonkins, and her step-sister Veronica. Things get even more complicated when she and Veronica venture to the surface and save the life of the human Prince Archie—and both fall in love with him! In order to re-connect with their human love interest, they must make a sacrifice. Enter: the evil sea-witch Cheryl. When she gives them an offer they can’t refuse, is it sayonara to the sub-aquatic world and, if so, at what cost? Find out in this Archie-fied take on the classic Little Mermaid story!
I've shared that I'm not a huge fan of the current fairy tale stories taking place in this title. But I also know that they appeal to many of Archie Comics' younger fans so I don't hold it against them for running with this idea. That said, I like "The Little Mermaid" and I love mermaids, so this story holds a little more appeal to me than others.

BETTY & VERONICA #267 is scheduled to be released in late August 2013.

1 comment:

"STUFFED ANIMAL" said...

Jon,

I don't like the fairy tale turn, either. But that cover is beautiful, and I like it that the artist knows how to draw teenage girl breasts properly. All too often, cartoonists draw teens as if they just came out of breast augmentation surgery! Even the late Dan DeCarlo was sometimes guilty of this fault.

As far as drawing teenage boy pectorals . . . I knew some boys who were very well-developed at fifteen, sixteen. So I have no problem with a wee bit of exaggeration there!