Archie then ( pre 2000s) was way better than the stuff now. The stories then didn't try to be everything for everybody. Archie and his friends were just themselves and people liked them for that. It's one thing to be poltically correct and quite another to go overboard. I didn't see many non-caucasians in the Archie stories of yore. Did it bother me or my familly or my friends or my teachers etc etc ? No. We accepted them for what they are.

Frankly, all the new characters/plots etc. which Archie has introduced over the past few years are attempts to regain a lost market. Falling book sales are the simplest indicator and Archie is trying one trick after the other in the hope that it stays afloat.

Will Archie file for bankruptcy in the coming years ? Maybe.

Archie comics were better in the '40s to sometime in the '70s than they are now, but they are better now than they were a few years ago.

Archie can't be as funny or as sexy as it was in its prime, because the humor comics market is not what it was (Jughead is their funniest current comic and it doesn't sell that well) and the "good girl art" style has gone to other places than newsstand comics. So they've made a choice to concentrate on more serious material, longer stories. And they're having more success with that than they did with the '00s comics or even the crazy experimental titles of the early '90s. At least there's a sense that this is new for them and they're doing something that wasn't already done better in the '50s and '60s golden age.

I'm actually conflicted.  I can find both pros and cons of every era in Archie's 70 year history.

I'll agree that the older stories were much funnier and kept you entertained, but I'm also looking at some of the recent stories, and they're just as fun.  I mean, if you're looking at it through the viewpoint of a nine year old, which is the target audience, they're likely going to find it great, because that's what they're growing up with now.  From my own experiences, I grew up during the late eighties, and I have a lot of fond memories of that time period, having gotten some of my first Archies during that time period.  I think it all depends on the period you grew up in.  Obviously those who grew up with '70s Archie may find '10s Archie to be a bit juvenile, but doesn't that apply to all forms of media?  Doesn't mean that they're bad...just different from how we were introduced to it.

I'd say that Archie's worst creative period was the period between 1991 and 1994 with all the experimental titles, and Jughead's makeover, and Veronica's title seemingly being taken over by crazy people.  Thankfully by 1995, it had more or less learned from its mistakes.  And some stories, like the Kevin Keller story arc, the Life With Archie magazine, and the Love Showdown storyline of late '94 were critically acclaimed, and fans seem to agree.

But to say that Archie comics will go bankrupt as a result of the new books is a wee bit pessimistic, IMO, especially since they're doing so well with the graphic novel collections.

oh, and i have to agree wiyh captain hero. juggie with that stupid pin making him a babe-magnet was the most wretched decision ever made. there will be no nostalgia for those stories...

I'm pretty much agreeing with what others have said.  The Archie comics from the beginning up through the '70s were funnier, more creative, sexier, edgier, more romantic, and more human than they are today.  I try every once in awhile to read a current Archie comic and it usually does absolutely nothing for me.  Too bland, watered down, characters too perfect, political correctness ruling the day, etc.  Archie comics just aren't fun any more.  They used to be something all ages could enjoy.  Now they really are targeting pre-teens and seem to be doing so almost exclusively. 

I find it hard to choose an "era" that I preferred. Especially because half of all prior eras end up in the Digests (which is where I got most of my Archie fix anyways) regardless of decade. I can't bash the late-80s early-90s era, because that's the one where *I* made my way into Riverdale. Despite all the rampant goofiness (the '90s led to a LOT of experimentation, and as usual when you experiment, you make a lot of garbage), it was a fun time for some books. I'd argue that Dan DeCarlo peaked as an artist around this time in terms of drawing the ladies, as well.

The '40s & '50s are the funniest era. It helps that good comedy writers could be found in the comics pages- TV hadn't stolen them all away just yet. They did a bit too much of the "Three's Company" Comedy of Errors stuff for my tastes, but the one-off gags and slapstick were unquestionably the best here. But Bob Bolling did some GREAT "serious" or sad work on both Little Archie and the mainstream books- he could be as touching as anybody, and a great example of how Archie can be classically good, and not just whacky antics.

The '60s was Archie's most successful era, and a lot of my mom's old books from this time are quite good. It seems more than a little pandering and "trying to court the issues without actually touching on them" with non-stop jokes about hippies, barefoot teens and "Love-Ins", but then, that's been an issue in Archie for generations. The whole "Everyone acts nice and less crazy" thing was already becoming well in effect by that point, though- it is NO modern concept to have everyone do food drives and help the homeless all the time. The books are more relevant nowadays, some are great for any fan (especially "World of Archie"), there's a lot of good modern talent, and they're also willing to experiment and take risks (Magazine format, adult storytelling, Kevin Keller the Flawless Gay Kid). It sucks that some books had to fall by the wayside because of sales, and this era is so rough for comics sales in general, but the actual work being produced is much better on-average than the '90s stuff.

We also have far more "Arcs" nowadays than before. I can't even remember an Archie story before 1990 that had more than one part (aside from "four parts within one book")- it makes for some interesting storytelling that's actually allowed to explore the characters & concepts a little better. We even get 4-part storylines in the DIGESTS, now! I also like how the cast is larger, with real background characters instead of just "random supporting character we'll never see again". I like the new diveristy, though the "Cast of Tokens" just seems pandering and goofy, like that "Tinkerbell" show Disney has. And of course, the stories got a bit more bland, as many of the characters had to act... not more "serious", just less exaggerated and crazy. A lot of the old charm goes away when Veronica & Cheryl are nice and Moose doesn't pound the snot out of guys who look at his "gurl".

For art, Dan Parent & Fernando Ruiz are particularly good in the modern day stuff. Rex Lindsey does a great Jughead. Nobody could replace Dan DeCarlo, though- and old age has made me appreciate Samm Schwartz (I used to dimiss him as "the guy who drew the ugliest women" but now I recognize he was the best slapstick/comedy artist) & Bob Montana (I hadn't seen his later, better stuff- just the ugly ways he used to draw the characters), so their stuff looks great to me nowadays as well.

the 50s-60s were tops, & the 70s not far behind, IMHO.

Nowadays...bring back the good girl art, & we'll talk.