As we all know the first live action Archie comics series Riverdale besides the unofficial ones like the Archie pilot from 1964,The variety show from 1978 and Archie: To Riverdale and Back Again pilot will air on CW and is based on the characters from the Archie comics.
It will be considered a 'mystery' teen drama series with you know 'adult actors' as teenagers it happens a lot to 'teen shows' who never have actual 'teen actors' like the ones from Disney channel and nickelodeon.
But there is one actual problem the main comic book series are Comedy besides the dark horror ones which are okay since it is its own title. Comedy has been around in the Archie comic series since the beginning well besides it has superheroes when it was MLJ and has been always like that though they deal with teen issues and a bit drama.
Making a live action series based on a funny comic book property which is comedy and to be a dark teen drama series is a problem. Many Archie fanatics who read the comic book series will hate it and will earn mixed reviews and it will only last for one or two seasons.
So I thought maybe I am going to explain my take on a proper live action Archie live action series,
If the series is family oriented then the role of the Archie characters should be played by teens but it should not be produced by it's a laugh productions who made most of the Disney teens sitcoms and it must be different from regular nick sitcoms if its aired on nickelodeon or at least let the Archie sitcom air on Netflix or any web network channels.
But if the series is aimed for older audience then let the characters be played by actual aged teen actors or maybe older actors instead like most 'teen shows' do but let it be sitcom or at least a drama comedy series like scrubs where it will probably involve daily teen problems and stuff including LGBT and it should be aired on MTV or maybe Netflix or some other web channels.
So that's my take on a proper Archie live action series and the reason why I am saying this is that the Archie comic series are comedy including the reboot though it has drama elements since it has to tackle usual teen problems. But making a live action series based on a classic comedy comic book series and turn into a mystery teen drama series and air on CW which never airs sitcoms that's a big No-no.
Well, let's not forget Archie's Weird Mysteries, was about- like the name says, mysteries. But this new CW thing is gonna be more about sex, violence/murder. That's what I don't like. What is it about people that all they want to watch is those kinds of things? They don't really care about innocent-ish things anymore.
Never mind all that. I'm still waiting for a proper Archie animated series. The first one (produced by Filmation) came the closest, but that isn't saying much. Of the main five characters, about the only one whose personality came even remotely close to being captured by the cartoon was Reggie (at least he could be relied on to pull underhanded tricks and prank Archie). Did we see comical situations caused by Archie's accident-prone nature, his inability to choose between Betty & Veronica, his constant chasing after various girls, his misadventures working various jobs in an attempt to make enough cash to date Veronica? What about Archie's behavior constantly landing him in Detention, or him being a constant thorn in Mr. Lodge's side? What about Archie constantly chasing Veronica, while Betty constantly chased Archie? We did not see anything like that. Did we see episodes based on the contrasting nature of B & V's personalities? We did not. Did we see episodes based on Jughead's mooching, his willingness to do anything if there was a food reward involved, or his concentrated effort to avoid work? We did not. Did we see intense contests between Archie & Reggie over dating Veronica or Reggie's constantly outclassing Archie as more well-dressed, better in sports, with a nicer car and plenty of spending cash; B & V's rivalry over Archie, and the lengths each might go to, to gain the upper hand over the other; or the battle of wits between Jughead and Reggie? We did not. Besides the music, all we ever saw were generic comedy situations. That and lots and lots of Hot Dog's antics. The Filmation people absolutely loved Hot Dog... it was practically his show. Not surprisingly, since they were the ones who invented him.
Quote from: DeCarlo Rules on December 27, 2016, 05:25:06 PM
Never mind all that. I'm still waiting for a proper Archie animated series. The first one (produced by Filmation) came the closest, but that isn't saying much. Of the main five characters, about the only one whose personality came even remotely close to being captured by the cartoon was Reggie (at least he could be relied on to pull underhanded tricks and prank Archie). Did we see comical situations caused by Archie's accident-prone nature, his inability to choose between Betty & Veronica, his constant chasing after various girls, his misadventures working various jobs in an attempt to make enough cash to date Veronica? We did not. Did we see episodes based on the contrasting nature of B & V's personalities? We did not. Did we see episodes based on Jughead's mooching, his willingness to do anything if there was a food reward involved, or his concentrated effort to avoid work? We did not. Did we see intense contests between Archie & Reggie over dating Veronica or Reggie's constantly outclassing Archie as more well-dressed, better in sports, with a nicer car and plenty of spending cash; B & V's rivalry over Archie, and the lengths each might go to, to gain the upper hand over the other; or the battle of wits between Jughead and Reggie? We did not. Besides the music, all we ever saw were generic comedy situations. That and lots and lots of Hot Dog's antics. The Filmation people absolutely loved Hot Dog... it was practically his show. Not surprisingly, since they were the ones who invented him.
I'm still waiting for this too. You would think with all the comics written, they would have tons of material for the above scenarios you described.
Quote from: 60sBettyandReggie on December 27, 2016, 12:46:41 PM
Well, let's not forget Archie's Weird Mysteries, was about- like the name says, mysteries. But this new CW thing is gonna be more about sex, violence/murder. That's what I don't like. What is it about people that all they want to watch is those kinds of things? They don't really care about innocent-ish things anymore.
Oh yeah i heard about Archie's Weird Mysteries,It may be a poor show at least it has the familiar archie themes especially its funny elements,As for the new CW riverdale yeah i don't like it as well ,Spinoff from archie comics consisting of horror and later action-fine.Reboot the archie universe series while retaining its funny elements okay.
But making a live action dark archie series with adult tones like sex,murder and mystery this I don't like. And why people want to watch this type it's like the 90s again to the superheroes except this time its for the archie comics industry.I know change is good but making a live action and dark that's too much i prefer live action with a light tone and sitcom and if they want to aim for a live audience make a sitcom with a drama like scrubs did.
Quote from: DeCarlo Rules on December 27, 2016, 05:25:06 PM
Never mind all that. I'm still waiting for a proper Archie animated series. The first one (produced by Filmation) came the closest, but that isn't saying much. Of the main five characters, about the only one whose personality came even remotely close to being captured by the cartoon was Reggie (at least he could be relied on to pull underhanded tricks and prank Archie). Did we see comical situations caused by Archie's accident-prone nature, his inability to choose between Betty & Veronica, his constant chasing after various girls, his misadventures working various jobs in an attempt to make enough cash to date Veronica? What about Archie's behavior constantly landing him in Detention, or him being a constant thorn in Mr. Lodge's side? What about Archie constantly chasing Veronica, while Betty constantly chased Archie? We did not see anything like that. Did we see episodes based on the contrasting nature of B & V's personalities? We did not. Did we see episodes based on Jughead's mooching, his willingness to do anything if there was a food reward involved, or his concentrated effort to avoid work? We did not. Did we see intense contests between Archie & Reggie over dating Veronica or Reggie's constantly outclassing Archie as more well-dressed, better in sports, with a nicer car and plenty of spending cash; B & V's rivalry over Archie, and the lengths each might go to, to gain the upper hand over the other; or the battle of wits between Jughead and Reggie? We did not. Besides the music, all we ever saw were generic comedy situations. That and lots and lots of Hot Dog's antics. The Filmation people absolutely loved Hot Dog... it was practically his show. Not surprisingly, since they were the ones who invented him.
You know maybe an animated archie cartoon would work let it air on maybe cartoon network,nickelodeon or maybe disney XD or disney channel and let it be faithful to the source material aimed for younger audience though i wish for a live action archie sitcom aimed for both older and younger audience .Then again nobody wish for a live action peanuts film, right?
A cartoon Archie Comics series would seem like a slam dunk. However, cartoons usually have limited budgets, so Betty and Veronica would be wearing the same clothes in every episode, which is rather off-putting. A live-action sitcom without either a studio audience or a laugh track would could very good, IMO.
Quote from: DeCarlo Rules on December 27, 2016, 05:25:06 PM
Never mind all that. I'm still waiting for a proper Archie animated series. The first one (produced by Filmation) came the closest, but that isn't saying much. Of the main five characters, about the only one whose personality came even remotely close to being captured by the cartoon was Reggie (at least he could be relied on to pull underhanded tricks and prank Archie). Did we see comical situations caused by Archie's accident-prone nature, his inability to choose between Betty & Veronica, his constant chasing after various girls, his misadventures working various jobs in an attempt to make enough cash to date Veronica? What about Archie's behavior constantly landing him in Detention, or him being a constant thorn in Mr. Lodge's side? What about Archie constantly chasing Veronica, while Betty constantly chased Archie? We did not see anything like that. Did we see episodes based on the contrasting nature of B & V's personalities? We did not. Did we see episodes based on Jughead's mooching, his willingness to do anything if there was a food reward involved, or his concentrated effort to avoid work? We did not. Did we see intense contests between Archie & Reggie over dating Veronica or Reggie's constantly outclassing Archie as more well-dressed, better in sports, with a nicer car and plenty of spending cash; B & V's rivalry over Archie, and the lengths each might go to, to gain the upper hand over the other; or the battle of wits between Jughead and Reggie? We did not. Besides the music, all we ever saw were generic comedy situations. That and lots and lots of Hot Dog's antics. The Filmation people absolutely loved Hot Dog... it was practically his show. Not surprisingly, since they were the ones who invented him.
I can't begin to express how much I was looking forward to that show before its debut and how utterly disappointed I was when I finally saw it. As you point out, it wasn't like the comic book stories and characters. And the voices were terrible!
Quote from: Bluto on January 05, 2017, 01:24:55 AM
Quote from: DeCarlo Rules on December 27, 2016, 05:25:06 PM
Never mind all that. I'm still waiting for a proper Archie animated series. The first one (produced by Filmation) came the closest, but that isn't saying much. Of the main five characters, about the only one whose personality came even remotely close to being captured by the cartoon was Reggie (at least he could be relied on to pull underhanded tricks and prank Archie). Did we see comical situations caused by Archie's accident-prone nature, his inability to choose between Betty & Veronica, his constant chasing after various girls, his misadventures working various jobs in an attempt to make enough cash to date Veronica? What about Archie's behavior constantly landing him in Detention, or him being a constant thorn in Mr. Lodge's side? What about Archie constantly chasing Veronica, while Betty constantly chased Archie? We did not see anything like that. Did we see episodes based on the contrasting nature of B & V's personalities? We did not. Did we see episodes based on Jughead's mooching, his willingness to do anything if there was a food reward involved, or his concentrated effort to avoid work? We did not. Did we see intense contests between Archie & Reggie over dating Veronica or Reggie's constantly outclassing Archie as more well-dressed, better in sports, with a nicer car and plenty of spending cash; B & V's rivalry over Archie, and the lengths each might go to, to gain the upper hand over the other; or the battle of wits between Jughead and Reggie? We did not. Besides the music, all we ever saw were generic comedy situations. That and lots and lots of Hot Dog's antics. The Filmation people absolutely loved Hot Dog... it was practically his show. Not surprisingly, since they were the ones who invented him.
I can't begin to express how much I was looking forward to that show before its debut and how utterly disappointed I was when I finally saw it. As you point out, it wasn't like the comic book stories and characters. And the voices were terrible!
There doesn't seem to be any evidence that the Filmation people actually read any of the then-current or recent Archie comic books as source material for their scriptwriters. Then again, as a Saturday morning cartoon, it was aimed at even younger kids than the median age of Archie Comics readers. That meant no dating or romance-based plots, no "girl-chasing" for Archie. As well, this was the time when animated cartoons on television had come under intense scrutiny by parents (specifically Peggy Charren's "Action For Children's Television", which had just been formed in 1968), and in a way, the very idea of adapting Archie to television was a response to this (where previously Filmation had adapted action-oriented comic book heroes like Superman and Aquaman). While The Archie Show went into production earlier than any "Action"
against action-oriented television programs for children had actually been taken, as one of the early prime producers of those action cartoons (along with Hanna-Barbera), certainly producers Norm Prescott and Lou Scheimer had been among the first to hear the sabres rattling. As a result, all the flawed characteristics of Archie and the gang were ignored, and they became bland, model teenagers (except for the one 'black hat' character, Reggie the troublemaker, clearly portrayed as a n'eer-do-well whose actions were not to be emulated). They did have some idea of how bland they had made the characters though, and in an attempt to balance that, they figured -- well, who could object to the comical antics of a cartoon mutt who thinks like a human! As well, cartoon animals were always easier to animate for the traditional animators than realistic people.
Knowing a little about Lou Scheimer, the producer of the cartoon, I can tell you he was inspired in a lot of his choices for adapting existing media characters to animation by his own childhood memories, and many of those derived from the era of radio plays. THE NEW ADVENTURES OF SUPERMAN, when you look closely at the cartoon, took most of its cues not from the Golden Age or Silver Age comic books, but from the classic radio series
The Adventures of Superman, starring Bud Collyer. That's why he hired Collyer to play the role of Clark Kent/Superman, and former announcer for the radio series Jackson Beck to do the narration (heard in the cartoon credits doing a slightly modified update of the old radio opening
"Faster than a speeding bullet! More powerful than a locomotive! Able to leap tall buildings in a single bound! ... Superman! Rocketed to Earth as an infant when the distant planet Krypton exploded, and who, disguised as Clark Kent, mild-mannered reporter for The Daily Planet, fights a never-ending battle for truth, justice and freedom, with super-powers far beyond those of ordinary mortals!"). In addition to getting Bud Collyer, Jackson Beck, and Joan Alexander (Lois) to reprise their roles for the new animated cartoon, Filmation included characters used only in the radio series like
Daily Planet copyboy Beany (himself an 'Archie-type' character). Another member of the voice cast of TNAoS was Jack Grimes, famous now as the voice of Speed Racer, here reprising his role (from the latter years of the Adventures of Superman radio series) as Jimmy Olsen. As an interesting connection, Grimes had also played the role of Henry Aldrich (one of the two prime Archie Andrews prototypes, along with Mickey Rooney's Andy Hardy) of
The Aldrich Family, on an early television adaptation of the radio series. (
The Aldrich Family radio series had a complex evolution itself, but is well worth listening to by fans of Archie, as it gives some very interesting insight into how much the characters of Henry Aldrich and Archie Andrews shared in common.)
So when you ask yourself why the vocal characterizations for Archie and the gang in the Filmation cartoons sounded so strange, go back and listen to the voices on the old Archie Andrews radio program. Many people have wondered about the seemingly odd choice of Filmation to give the voice of Veronica (Jane Webb, who portrayed all the female voices on the show) a 'Southern Belle' accent, and that can be specifically attributed to the radio program. I think Lou Scheimer was largely working from an amalgam of hazy recollections of both the radio show and Bob Montana's newspaper strip Archie, and never even looked at the comic books of the time.
I don't understand why they drew so few clothes for those cartoons.
Quote from: Upsiditus on January 04, 2017, 09:36:35 PM
A cartoon Archie Comics series would seem like a slam dunk. However, cartoons usually have limited budgets, so Betty and Veronica would be wearing the same clothes in every episode, which is rather off-putting.
Good point
Quote from: Upsiditus on January 04, 2017, 09:36:35 PMA live-action sitcom without either a studio audience or a laugh track would could very good, IMO.
Yeah,I think that could work and if its aimed for older audience that will be suitable as well.
Quote from: Bluto on January 05, 2017, 01:24:55 AMQuote from: DeCarlo Rules on December 27, 2016, 05:25:06 PMNever mind all that. I'm still waiting for a proper Archie animated series. The first one (produced by Filmation) came the closest, but that isn't saying much. Of the main five characters, about the only one whose personality came even remotely close to being captured by the cartoon was Reggie (at least he could be relied on to pull underhanded tricks and prank Archie). Did we see comical situations caused by Archie's accident-prone nature, his inability to choose between Betty & Veronica, his constant chasing after various girls, his misadventures working various jobs in an attempt to make enough cash to date Veronica? What about Archie's behavior constantly landing him in Detention, or him being a constant thorn in Mr. Lodge's side? What about Archie constantly chasing Veronica, while Betty constantly chased Archie? We did not see anything like that. Did we see episodes based on the contrasting nature of B & V's personalities? We did not. Did we see episodes based on Jughead's mooching, his willingness to do anything if there was a food reward involved, or his concentrated effort to avoid work? We did not. Did we see intense contests between Archie & Reggie over dating Veronica or Reggie's constantly outclassing Archie as more well-dressed, better in sports, with a nicer car and plenty of spending cash; B & V's rivalry over Archie, and the lengths each might go to, to gain the upper hand over the other; or the battle of wits between Jughead and Reggie? We did not. Besides the music, all we ever saw were generic comedy situations. That and lots and lots of Hot Dog's antics. The Filmation people absolutely loved Hot Dog... it was practically his show. Not surprisingly, since they were the ones who invented him.
I can't begin to express how much I was looking forward to that show before its debut and how utterly disappointed I was when I finally saw it. As you point out, it wasn't like the comic book stories and characters. And the voices were terrible!
yeah you will be disappointed when you watch 'Riverdale' as for the animation part back then in the 70's, animation was poor due to limited budget at that time which was why hannah barbera and filmation especially ruby spears were the king of television animation in the 70s
Including Dic because their quality was poor when they did archie's weird mysteries
Quote from: DeCarlo Rules on January 05, 2017, 02:36:07 AMThere doesn't seem to be any evidence that the Filmation people actually read any of the then-current or recent Archie comic books as source material for their scriptwriters. Then again, as a Saturday morning cartoon, it was aimed at even younger kids than the median age of Archie Comics readers. That meant no dating or romance-based plots, no "girl-chasing" for Archie. As well, this was the time when animated cartoons on television had come under intense scrutiny by parents (specifically Peggy Charren's "Action For Children's Television", which had just been formed in 1968), and in a way, the very idea of adapting Archie to television was a response to this (where previously Filmation had adapted action-oriented comic book heroes like Superman and Aquaman). While The Archie Show went into production earlier than any "Action" against action-oriented television programs for children had actually been taken, as one of the early prime producers of those action cartoons (along with Hanna-Barbera), certainly producers Norm Prescott and Lou Scheimer had been among the first to hear the sabres rattling. As a result, all the flawed characteristics of Archie and the gang were ignored, and they became bland, model teenagers (except for the one 'black hat' character, Reggie the troublemaker, clearly portrayed as a n'eer-do-well whose actions were not to be emulated). They did have some idea of how bland they had made the characters though, and in an attempt to balance that, they figured -- well, who could object to the comical antics of a cartoon mutt who thinks like a human! As well, cartoon animals were always easier to animate for the traditional animators than realistic people.
You do have a good point about that.
Quote from: DeCarlo Rules on January 05, 2017, 02:36:07 AMKnowing a little about Lou Scheimer, the producer of the cartoon, I can tell you he was inspired in a lot of his choices for adapting existing media characters to animation by his own childhood memories, and many of those derived from the era of radio plays. THE NEW ADVENTURES OF SUPERMAN, when you look closely at the cartoon, took most of its cues not from the Golden Age or Silver Age comic books, but from the classic radio series The Adventures of Superman, starring Bud Collyer. That's why he hired Collyer to play the role of Clark Kent/Superman, and former announcer for the radio series Jackson Beck to do the narration (heard in the cartoon credits doing a slightly modified update of the old radio opening "Faster than a speeding bullet! More powerful than a locomotive! Able to leap tall buildings in a single bound! ... Superman! Rocketed to Earth as an infant when the distant planet Krypton exploded, and who, disguised as Clark Kent, mild-mannered reporter for The Daily Planet, fights a never-ending battle for truth, justice and freedom, with super-powers far beyond those of ordinary mortals!"). In addition to getting Bud Collyer, Jackson Beck, and Joan Alexander (Lois) to reprise their roles for the new animated cartoon, Filmation included characters used only in the radio series like Daily Planet copyboy Beany (himself an 'Archie-type' character). Another member of the voice cast of TNAoS was Jack Grimes, famous now as the voice of Speed Racer, here reprising his role (from the latter years of the Adventures of Superman radio series) as Jimmy Olsen. As an interesting connection, Grimes had also played the role of Henry Aldrich (one of the two prime Archie Andrews prototypes, along with Mickey Rooney's Andy Hardy) of The Aldrich Family, on an early television adaptation of the radio series. (The Aldrich Family radio series had a complex evolution itself, but is well worth listening to by fans of Archie, as it gives some very interesting insight into how much the characters of Henry Aldrich and Archie Andrews shared in common.)
So when you ask yourself why the vocal characterizations for Archie and the gang in the Filmation cartoons sounded so strange, go back and listen to the voices on the old Archie Andrews radio program. Many people have wondered about the seemingly odd choice of Filmation to give the voice of Veronica (Jane Webb, who portrayed all the female voices on the show) a 'Southern Belle' accent, and that can be specifically attributed to the radio program. I think Lou Scheimer was largely working from an amalgam of hazy recollections of both the radio show and Bob Montana's newspaper strip Archie, and never even looked at the comic books of the time.
and you have a good pointt about the radio part as well ???
I dunno, I don't see how a comedy Archie show would work all that well. The Archie comedy has always been, well, rather traditional and not really anything special. The 2015 reboot, I think, would have made a great tv show- all the right balance between drama and actually clever jokes and moments- when i read the first issue, i thought "This is the best TV pilot i've ever read!". While Riverdale did sort of come out of left field, I think it's going to be over the top and dramatic enough to be, if not good, at least entertaining.
Quote from: Justnobody42 on January 07, 2017, 11:17:16 PM
I dunno, I don't see how a comedy Archie show would work all that well. The Archie comedy has always been, well, rather traditional and not really anything special. The 2015 reboot, I think, would have made a great tv show- all the right balance between drama and actually clever jokes and moments- when i read the first issue, i thought "This is the best TV pilot i've ever read!". While Riverdale did sort of come out of left field, I think it's going to be over the top and dramatic enough to be, if not good, at least entertaining.
Yeah,I agree they should have made a archie
drama comedy seriesbased on the reboot format heck the reboot archie comic series gives respect to the original classic version because it sometimes has drama and comedy in it.
Quote from: terrence12 on January 08, 2017, 03:31:04 AM
Quote from: Justnobody42 on January 07, 2017, 11:17:16 PM
I dunno, I don't see how a comedy Archie show would work all that well. The Archie comedy has always been, well, rather traditional and not really anything special. The 2015 reboot, I think, would have made a great tv show- all the right balance between drama and actually clever jokes and moments- when i read the first issue, i thought "This is the best TV pilot i've ever read!". While Riverdale did sort of come out of left field, I think it's going to be over the top and dramatic enough to be, if not good, at least entertaining.
Yeah,I agree they should have made a archie drama comedy seriesbased on the reboot format heck the reboot archie comic series gives respect to the original classic version because it sometimes has drama and comedy in it.
They could have made something a la Freaks and Geeks, for example. It is drama with comedic tones.
QuoteI dunno, I don't see how a comedy Archie show would work all that well. The Archie comedy has always been, well, rather traditional and not really anything special.
Why wouldn't it work? It would work quite well if they had the right writers. What's wrong with being "traditional"?? And if the Archie comedy is "nothing special" according to you, then why has it been around for so many years? Clearly they were doing something right.
Quote from: 60sBettyandReggie on January 08, 2017, 09:33:36 AM
They could have made something a la Freaks and Geeks, for example. It is drama with comedic tones.
You know that could work as well,Though i think it should be 50% comedy and 50% drama.
Quote from: 60sBettyandReggie on January 08, 2017, 09:33:36 AMWhy wouldn't it work? It would work quite well if they had the right writers. What's wrong with being "traditional"?? And if the Archie comedy is "nothing special" according to you, then why has it been around for so many years? Clearly they were doing something right.
Yeah,I am with you,Tradition is not bad I mean the comedy element in archie comics has been there for many years
Quote from: 60sBettyandReggie on January 08, 2017, 09:33:36 AM
QuoteI dunno, I don't see how a comedy Archie show would work all that well. The Archie comedy has always been, well, rather traditional and not really anything special.
Why wouldn't it work? It would work quite well if they had the right writers. What's wrong with being "traditional"?? And if the Archie comedy is "nothing special" according to you, then why has it been around for so many years? Clearly they were doing something right.
'Nothing special' describes most of the non-comedy shows on television about ordinary people (and ordinary teenagers). Once they stop being funny, I have absolutely no intrinsic interest in what Archie and his friends do in their boring teenage lives.
Quote from: DeCarlo Rules on January 09, 2017, 11:02:03 AM
Quote from: 60sBettyandReggie on January 08, 2017, 09:33:36 AM
QuoteI dunno, I don't see how a comedy Archie show would work all that well. The Archie comedy has always been, well, rather traditional and not really anything special.
Why wouldn't it work? It would work quite well if they had the right writers. What's wrong with being "traditional"?? And if the Archie comedy is "nothing special" according to you, then why has it been around for so many years? Clearly they were doing something right.
'Nothing special' describes most of the non-comedy shows on television about ordinary people (and ordinary teenagers). Once they stop being funny, I have absolutely no intrinsic interest in what Archie and his friends do in their boring teenage lives.
Same here. Although, if we are talking about comics, I do like those Life with Archie and Archie at Riverdale High stories, that while they weren't funny, they
were interesting to read.
Quote from: 60sBettyandReggie on January 09, 2017, 12:58:21 PM
Same here. Although, if we are talking about comics, I do like those Life with Archie and Archie at Riverdale High stories, that while they weren't funny, they were interesting to read.
They are interesting only in the context of the array of titles ACP was publishing at the time, as were the mystery/adventure phases that JOSIE & THE PUSSYCATS, THAT WILKIN BOY, and MADHOUSE GLADS went through -- and even those stories weren't
entirely bereft of comedic moments. But imagine if those were the
only Archie titles that were being published at the time. That changes the big picture.
I actually have no problem with having a single title like
Life With Archie Magazine,
Afterlife With Archie, or even New Riverdale
Archie -- as long as it represents a mere tangent universe to the rest of ACP's publishing. As long as it's a mere variation on business as usual, it simply adds to the variety of choices to read. Those kinds of titles belong in the category of "Archie Adjacent" or "Archie Supplemental", because they don't have anything to do with what Archie is
really all about. When those kind of books are representative of 90% or more of the new Archie-related stories that ACP publishes, it's a whole different ball game.
There just aren't enough classic, comedic Archie stories when it's split up (240 pages a year/divided by 52 weeks = 48 five-page stories). Then there are the reprints, which increasingly aren't "new" reprints to me, as it seems each new digest has fewer and fewer stories, percentage wise, that I haven't read before.
Now, I haven't closely kept track of the release dates of the New Riverdale titles (4 ongoing series as of now, plus one 5-issue miniseries), and Archie Horror titles (2 onoing titles that hardly ever come out with a new issue), plus now they're adding a TV-based
Riverdale title (I don't know if it's supposed to be ongoing or a miniseries), so I can't actually tell you how many new 20-page stories they've published in those titles over the course of a year, and (owing to frequently missed shipping dates particularly on Archie Horror titles and Betty & Veronica) it may actually not be more than 480 pages a year (but that's what it would be if they managed to ship 2 new issues of any of those comics every month), which is twice what the digests publish in new classic Archie stories (240 pages) per year. I haven't counted Dark Circle titles in there either, since they hardly ever come out with a new one, like Archie Horror, but in any case those don't feature any of the comedy characters in some other genre. Actually, I don't think they published 48 previously-unpublished 5-page classic Archie stories last year - I think they missed a few of those digest issues.
Quote from: DeCarlo Rules on January 09, 2017, 11:02:03 AM
'Nothing special' describes most of the non-comedy shows on television about ordinary people (and ordinary teenagers). Once they stop being funny, I have absolutely no intrinsic interest in what Archie and his friends do in their boring teenage lives.
You know that's a good opinion ,If the show stops being funny we are not sure what Archie and his friends do in their boring teenage lives besides the riverdale thing.Besides it could have been if the archie source could have been used as a sitcom or a drama comedy series.
Quote from: 60sBettyandReggie on December 27, 2016, 12:46:41 PM
Well, let's not forget Archie's Weird Mysteries, was about- like the name says, mysteries. But this new CW thing is gonna be more about sex, violence/murder. That's what I don't like. What is it about people that all they want to watch is those kinds of things? They don't really care about innocent-ish things anymore.
I always enjoyed the sex/violence/murder centric stories in classic Archie. That Friday night date and running a lemonade stand stuff is for the birds.
*I agree with 60sBettyandReggie.
Quote from: steveinthecity on January 11, 2017, 10:08:09 PM
Quote from: 60sBettyandReggie on December 27, 2016, 12:46:41 PM
Well, let's not forget Archie's Weird Mysteries, was about- like the name says, mysteries. But this new CW thing is gonna be more about sex, violence/murder. That's what I don't like. What is it about people that all they want to watch is those kinds of things? They don't really care about innocent-ish things anymore.
I always enjoyed the sex/violence/murder centric stories in classic Archie. That Friday night date and running a lemonade stand stuff is for the birds.
*I agree with 60sBettyandReggie.
Oh, you! (In all honesty my favorite classic stories were the really gory ones ;) )
Quote from: 60sBettyandReggie on January 11, 2017, 10:52:32 PM
Quote from: steveinthecity on January 11, 2017, 10:08:09 PM
Quote from: 60sBettyandReggie on December 27, 2016, 12:46:41 PM
Well, let's not forget Archie's Weird Mysteries, was about- like the name says, mysteries. But this new CW thing is gonna be more about sex, violence/murder. That's what I don't like. What is it about people that all they want to watch is those kinds of things? They don't really care about innocent-ish things anymore.
I always enjoyed the sex/violence/murder centric stories in classic Archie. That Friday night date and running a lemonade stand stuff is for the birds.
*I agree with 60sBettyandReggie.
Oh, you! (In all honesty my favorite classic stories were the really gory ones ;) )
While never too extreme, Bob Bolling was the best at pushing the "terror" envelope as it were. Those first thirty something issues of Little Archie show some of that. LWA volume 1 was obviously on that tip as well.
Quote from: steveinthecity on January 11, 2017, 11:45:46 PM
Quote from: 60sBettyandReggie on January 11, 2017, 10:52:32 PM
Quote from: steveinthecity on January 11, 2017, 10:08:09 PM
Quote from: 60sBettyandReggie on December 27, 2016, 12:46:41 PM
Well, let's not forget Archie's Weird Mysteries, was about- like the name says, mysteries. But this new CW thing is gonna be more about sex, violence/murder. That's what I don't like. What is it about people that all they want to watch is those kinds of things? They don't really care about innocent-ish things anymore.
I always enjoyed the sex/violence/murder centric stories in classic Archie. That Friday night date and running a lemonade stand stuff is for the birds.
*I agree with 60sBettyandReggie.
Oh, you! (In all honesty my favorite classic stories were the really gory ones ;) )
While never too extreme, Bob Bolling was the best at pushing the "terror" envelope as it were. Those first thirty something issues of Little Archie show some of that. LWA volume 1 was obviously on that tip as well.
Yeah, that's true. And how about the "Betty Cooper, Betty Cooper" storyline?
Quote from: steveinthecity on January 11, 2017, 10:08:09 PM
I always enjoyed the sex/violence/murder centric stories in classic Archie. That Friday night date and running a lemonade stand stuff is for the birds.
actually during the past there isn't a single sex/violence/murder centric in those classic archie stories just some innuendos though some part about mysteries were included Quote from: steveinthecity on January 11, 2017, 11:45:46 PMWhile never too extreme, Bob Bolling was the best at pushing the "terror" envelope as it were. Those first thirty something issues of Little Archie show some of that. LWA volume 1 was obviously on that tip as well.
Maybe i mean he is the one who created little archie heck he even made fantasy adventures based on that character.
Quote from: 60sBettyandReggie on January 12, 2017, 12:27:06 AMAnd how about the "Betty Cooper, Betty Cooper" storyline?
Actually "Betty Cooper, Betty Cooper" is the parody of daytime soaps during that time which is also the parody of the same show that parodies teh soap opera called Mary Hartman, Mary Hartman
Quote from: terrence12 on January 12, 2017, 11:49:52 AM
Quote from: steveinthecity on January 11, 2017, 10:08:09 PM
I always enjoyed the sex/violence/murder centric stories in classic Archie. That Friday night date and running a lemonade stand stuff is for the birds.
actually during the past there isn't a single sex/violence/murder centric in those classic archie stories just some innuendos though some part about mysteries were included
Quote from: steveinthecity on January 11, 2017, 11:45:46 PMWhile never too extreme, Bob Bolling was the best at pushing the "terror" envelope as it were. Those first thirty something issues of Little Archie show some of that. LWA volume 1 was obviously on that tip as well.
Maybe i mean he is the one who created little archie heck he even made fantasy adventures based on that character.Quote from: 60sBettyandReggie on January 12, 2017, 12:27:06 AMAnd how about the "Betty Cooper, Betty Cooper" storyline?
Actually "Betty Cooper, Betty Cooper" is the parody of daytime soaps during that time which is also the parody of the same show that parodies teh soap opera called Mary Hartman, Mary Hartman
While I've just recently come to understand this is the most humorless message board in all the intranets, I would suggest your own humor and sarcasm meter be recalibrated when you have the opportunity. PM me at your leisure so I might assist.
Quote from: steveinthecity on January 12, 2017, 09:27:09 PM
While I've just recently come to understand this is the most humorless message board in all the intranets, I would suggest your own humor and sarcasm meter be recalibrated when you have the opportunity. PM me at your leisure so I might assist.
Huh? ???
Quote from: terrence12 on January 13, 2017, 11:17:43 PM
Quote from: steveinthecity on January 12, 2017, 09:27:09 PM
While I've just recently come to understand this is the most humorless message board in all the intranets, I would suggest your own humor and sarcasm meter be recalibrated when you have the opportunity. PM me at your leisure so I might assist.
Huh? ???
Eggs Actly. Thank you for helping to make my point. :D
Quote from: steveinthecity on January 13, 2017, 11:22:29 PM
Quote from: terrence12 on January 13, 2017, 11:17:43 PM
Quote from: steveinthecity on January 12, 2017, 09:27:09 PM
While I've just recently come to understand this is the most humorless message board in all the intranets, I would suggest your own humor and sarcasm meter be recalibrated when you have the opportunity. PM me at your leisure so I might assist.
Huh? ???
Eggs Actly. Thank you for helping to make my point. :D
Whether humor translates from the humor-er to the humor-ee (especially over the internet where tone of voice and visual cues like facial expressions are missing) is largely a matter of whether they have a common frame of reference. Emoticons are kind of a poor substitute for the face-to-face clues, and there's not much you can do about it. Differences in ages and backgrounds (as well as temperament) make a huge difference in whether the intended humor translates properly. When it doesn't though, it hardly does any good to fret about it. Just roll with it. 8)
Quote from: steveinthecity on January 13, 2017, 11:22:29 PM
Eggs Actly. Thank you for helping to make my point. :D
Quote from: DeCarlo Rules on January 14, 2017, 12:35:01 AMwhether the intended humor translates properly. When it doesn't though, it hardly does any good to fret about it. Just roll with it. 8)
Why you two go off topic ,It doesn't make any sense ???
Quote from: terrence12 on January 14, 2017, 02:38:19 AM
Quote from: steveinthecity on January 13, 2017, 11:22:29 PM
Eggs Actly. Thank you for helping to make my point. :D
Quote from: DeCarlo Rules on January 14, 2017, 12:35:01 AMwhether the intended humor translates properly. When it doesn't though, it hardly does any good to fret about it. Just roll with it. 8)
Why you two go off topic ,It doesn't make any sense ???
If I had to do it all over again (or, the next time the whole site crashes and I have to re-register), I'd just change my username to Offtopic. Until then, if you see anyone posting under the name DeCarlo Rules, and he
doesn't go off topic in the space of a week or two, you'll know it's not the real me. :P What can I say. Sometimes it seems to me like the most interesting comments people make don't have anything to do with the thread topic.
It could be worse. At least I'm not a bot trying to sell you furniture from England.
But to get back to the subject... The first thing that pops into my mind when I see a thread titled "A proper Archie live action series" is why anyone would want to make one in the first place, because it's practically a guarantee that it won't be "proper". A live action series just seems to lean in that direction to begin with, because you're asking actors to imitate cartoon drawings. Nobody seems to ask questions like "Why isn't there a proper Bugs Bunny live action series?".
Quote from: DeCarlo Rules on January 14, 2017, 04:29:35 AM
If I had to do it all over again (or, the next time the whole site crashes and I have to re-register), I'd just change my username to Offtopic. Until then, if you see anyone posting under the name DeCarlo Rules, and he doesn't go off topic in the space of a week or two, you'll know it's not the real me. :P What can I say. Sometimes it seems to me like the most interesting comments people make don't have anything to do with the thread topic.
It could be worse. At least I'm not a bot trying to sell you furniture from England.
But to get back to the subject... The first thing that pops into my mind when I see a thread titled "A proper Archie live action series" is why anyone would want to make one in the first place, because it's practically a guarantee that it won't be "proper". A live action series just seems to lean in that direction to begin with, because you're asking actors to imitate cartoon drawings. Nobody seems to ask questions like "Why isn't there a proper Bugs Bunny live action series?".
The reason why the title of the thread is named "A proper Archie live action series" is because RIVERDALE is now a mystery thriller series and not being faithful to the source material and if there is a live action archie series faithfully based on the source material then it should be drama comedy series like scrubs and if its aimed for older audience since the past comic book series has innuendos then let it be but make it a comedy drama series faithful to the source material.Hence why i entitled this thread "A proper Archie live action series" and why i consider RIVERDALE not faithful to the source material.
Quote from: terrence12 on January 14, 2017, 11:18:02 AM
Quote from: DeCarlo Rules on January 14, 2017, 04:29:35 AM
If I had to do it all over again (or, the next time the whole site crashes and I have to re-register), I'd just change my username to Offtopic. Until then, if you see anyone posting under the name DeCarlo Rules, and he doesn't go off topic in the space of a week or two, you'll know it's not the real me. :P What can I say. Sometimes it seems to me like the most interesting comments people make don't have anything to do with the thread topic.
It could be worse. At least I'm not a bot trying to sell you furniture from England.
But to get back to the subject... The first thing that pops into my mind when I see a thread titled "A proper Archie live action series" is why anyone would want to make one in the first place, because it's practically a guarantee that it won't be "proper". A live action series just seems to lean in that direction to begin with, because you're asking actors to imitate cartoon drawings. Nobody seems to ask questions like "Why isn't there a proper Bugs Bunny live action series?".
The reason why the title of the thread is named "A proper Archie live action series" is because RIVERDALE is now a mystery thriller series and not being faithful to the source material
Isn't that what I said? It's already too late. There aren't going to be TWO live action series based on Archie on TV. And if RIVERDALE is as terrible as it sounds, and turns out to be a bomb and is quickly cancelled, then the TV producers aren't exactly going to be lining up to correct that show's "mistakes", either. (Although, can you really call them mistakes if they did it that way on purpose? Roberto Aguirre-Sacasa is certainly
aware that he's not being faithful to the source material.) The point to take away from this is that
they don't care that they're being unfaithful to the source material. What does some rinky-dink comic book writer know about entertainment anyway, compared to a big-shot TV writer? And you will NEVER eradicate that kind of thinking in the television and movie business.
BTW, I meant "why would anyone want to" make a live-action Archie series, not why did you make a thread about it.
Maybe you should ask yourself this question first before proceeding any further. Has there EVER been a live action series based on
any cartoony-type comic that was truly "faithful to the source material"? I can't think of
one. Not even the animated cartoons based on Archie have been faithful to the source material.
Unless you meant a live action series based on the New Riverdale comic books. That's a bit of a conundrum for me, because the New Riverdale comics are supposedly
based on, but are not
faithful to, the source material of the classic Archie comics. They could just have skipped the comics and gone straight to the unfaithful live action TV series as far as I'm concerned.
Did you ever wonder WHY there are so few (i
f any, depending I guess on how exacting you are about what is or isn't "faithful") faithfully-adapted TV shows or movies based on cartoon characters from comics or animation? To start with, you need a guy at the heart of the production that has "a vision" to faithfully adapt the source material. But even assuming that's what you start with, the chances of that faithful vision making it to the screen are slim.
Let's assume that you -- terrence12 -- are a fairly talented screenwriter who LOVES the classic Archie comics, and you have built up a string of impressive credits attached to previous successful productions, and you are a "name" guy that is somewhat in demand in TV production circles. You have "a vision" to faithfully adapt Archie as a live-action series, and you manage to get yourself into a meeting with producers who have the money to actually license the franchise from ACP. You spend weeks, months maybe, studying all the classic stories, making lists of important elements, characterization traits, typical scenarios, from the comics that
have to be included to make this a faithful adaptation. You write the pilot script, and give it four or five drafts until it's a finely-polished gem that is faithful in every way to a typical Archie comic book story, and includes all the characters displaying all their commonly recognizable (to Archie fans) traits. You even give it to a few select hardcore Archie fans in secret to vet for anything out-of-whack or missing that you may have failed to recognize in your own script, and it comes back with glowing praise and all "Big thumbs-up! Brilliant!!", so you're confident that you did right by the source material and that you've distilled the essence of Archie into a television script. Now you face the uphill battle against every person connected with that production, in the chain of command, or with any attachment to the purse strings that will actually get the thing made, because everybody in those positions is going to have "notes" on revisions for you. Things they don't like about it, and other things that they want you to put in, that are going to compromise your original script and spoil your vision of a faithful adaptation. Even assuming that after it's revised to satisfy everyone, it still looks
relatively not too bad... Then the casting director, over whom you have no control, makes some pretty "odd" casting choices of people that you, the writer, would never have envisioned in the roles you wrote. The production designers and set designers and costume designers are all working a little against your original mental conception of the script you wrote, too. Now it goes to be filmed, and the actors have some ideas about dialogue changes for their characters, or toss in some ad-libs while filming. The director and cinematographer have some ideas about tweaks to a lot of different scenes, too -- or they just come to a point in the actual filming where they say "This isn't working -- we've got to do something different." EVERYONE involved (all of whom have more practical clout with the production than you do) wants to put a little fingerprint on the thing, as if to say
"You see that, there? That wasn't in the original script I got... that was MY idea. I came up with that part myself." By the way, it goes without saying that NONE of those people are Archie fans, and couldn't care less about how "faithful" your script was. And THIS is why faithful comic adaptations are rarer than hen's teeth. There are just TOO Many Cooks in the kitchen, and everything works to
compromise the vision of the one guy who should be most responsible for seeing to it that that "vision" of faithfulness is realized. You can't win.
Quote from: DeCarlo Rules on January 14, 2017, 12:26:44 PM
Isn't that what I said? It's already too late. There aren't going to be TWO live action series based on Archie on TV. And if RIVERDALE is as terrible as it sounds, and turns out to be a bomb and is quickly cancelled, then the TV producers aren't exactly going to be lining up to correct that show's "mistakes", either. (Although, can you really call them mistakes if they did it that way on purpose? Roberto Aguirre-Sacasa is certainly aware that he's not being faithful to the source material.) The point to take away from this is that they don't care that they're being unfaithful to the source material. What does some rinky-dink comic book writer know about entertainment anyway, compared to a big-shot TV writer? And you will NEVER eradicate that kind of thinking in the television and movie business.
You know what I think ,If they never want to make a faithful adaptation of archie comics then they never should never have made "Riverdale" in the first place but still if they are not interested in archie comics despite that the reboot makes them popular again,Then the company should have ended or bankrupt and if a series is to be made then the "riverdale" series should be made but it should be faithful to the elements of both the original and reboot with a bit of comedy and drama like scrubs and if it's going to be aimed for older audience let it be but make the series faithful to the original and reboot ones with a bit of drama.And if those guys who are making "riverdale' are not interested in archie comics then they should never turn it into "a murder drama series" in the first place.
And if i were making a proper archie series and if riverdale fails and is getting cancelled then I should make a comedy drama series faithful to the elements of the source material but will have the tone of freaks and geeks and maybe scrubs.
Quote from: DeCarlo Rules on January 14, 2017, 12:26:44 PM Maybe you should ask yourself this question first before proceeding any further. Has there EVER been a live action series based on any cartoony-type comic that was truly "faithful to the source material"? I can't think of one. Not even the animated cartoons based on Archie have been faithful to the source material.
Actually the 70s are trying to the source materials elements and it worked though it has limited animation.Even Archie weird mysteries despite being a poor cartoon made by DIC and is a paranormal show is faithful to the elements.
Quote from: DeCarlo Rules on January 14, 2017, 12:26:44 PM Unless you meant a live action series based on the New Riverdale comic books. That's a bit of a conundrum for me, because the New Riverdale comics are supposedly based on, but are not faithful to, the source material of the classic Archie comics. They could just have skipped the comics and gone straight to the unfaithful live action TV series as far as I'm concerned.
You know if they ' skipped the comics and gone straight to the unfaithful live action TV series' then they should make the riverdale show but with a different name,different characters ,different town and not based on archie comics.
Quote from: DeCarlo Rules on January 14, 2017, 12:26:44 PM Did you ever wonder WHY there are so few (if any, depending I guess on how exacting you are about what is or isn't "faithful") faithfully-adapted TV shows or movies based on cartoon characters from comics or animation? To start with, you need a guy at the heart of the production that has "a vision" to faithfully adapt the source material. But even assuming that's what you start with, the chances of that faithful vision making it to the screen are slim.
Let's assume that you -- terrence12 -- are a fairly talented screenwriter who LOVES the classic Archie comics, and you have built up a string of impressive credits attached to previous successful productions, and you are a "name" guy that is somewhat in demand in TV production circles. You have "a vision" to faithfully adapt Archie as a live-action series, and you manage to get yourself into a meeting with producers who have the money to actually license the franchise from ACP. You spend weeks, months maybe, studying all the classic stories, making lists of important elements, characterization traits, typical scenarios, from the comics that have to be included to make this a faithful adaptation. You write the pilot script, and give it four or five drafts until it's a finely-polished gem that is faithful in every way to a typical Archie comic book story, and includes all the characters displaying all their commonly recognizable (to Archie fans) traits. You even give it to a few select hardcore Archie fans in secret to vet for anything out-of-whack or missing that you may have failed to recognize in your own script, and it comes back with glowing praise and all "Big thumbs-up! Brilliant!!", so you're confident that you did right by the source material and that you've distilled the essence of Archie into a television script. Now you face the uphill battle against every person connected with that production, in the chain of command, or with any attachment to the purse strings that will actually get the thing made, because everybody in those positions is going to have "notes" on revisions for you. Things they don't like about it, and other things that they want you to put in, that are going to compromise your original script and spoil your vision of a faithful adaptation. Even assuming that after it's revised to satisfy everyone, it still looks relatively not too bad... Then the casting director, over whom you have no control, makes some pretty "odd" casting choices of people that you, the writer, would never have envisioned in the roles you wrote. The production designers and set designers and costume designers are all working a little against your original mental conception of the script you wrote, too. Now it goes to be filmed, and the actors have some ideas about dialogue changes for their characters, or toss in some ad-libs while filming. The director and cinematographer have some ideas about tweaks to a lot of different scenes, too -- or they just come to a point in the actual filming where they say "This isn't working -- we've got to do something different." EVERYONE involved (all of whom have more practical clout with the production than you do) wants to put a little fingerprint on the thing, as if to say "You see that, there? That wasn't in the original script I got... that was MY idea. I came up with that part myself." By the way, it goes without saying that NONE of those people are Archie fans, and couldn't care less about how "faithful" your script was. And THIS is why faithful comic adaptations are rarer than hen's teeth. There are just TOO Many Cooks in the kitchen, and everything works to compromise the vision of the one guy who should be most responsible for seeing to it that that "vision" of faithfulness is realized. You can't win.
That might be true but that's where you are wrong it's true there might be other obstacles but there are ways to get through them If i were making a archie comedy drama series I find some other channels that will allows the creators to have free will to their show and give reigns by being a showrunner throughout ,I will collaborate with writers and actors and every members of the rew until the series will truly be faithful to the archie comics source material whether it medium of best.And if it's good I'll let it keep on running maybe for four season or when people get bored of the series and then i am done by ending the series with a bang or whimper that's how i will make archie series with a proper technique and that's cooperation,teamwork and finding a proper channel thats lets you be in charge of the series during the rest of the run.
Quote from: terrence12 on January 16, 2017, 10:55:43 AM
a archie comedy drama series I find some other channels [/font][/size]that will allows the creators to have free will to their show and give reigns by being a showrunner throughout ,I will collaborate with writers and actors and every members of the rew until the series will truly be faithful to the archie comics source material whether it medium of best.And if it's good I'll let it keep on running maybe for four season or when people get bored of the series and then i am done by ending the series with a bang or whimper that's how i will make archie series with a proper technique and that's cooperation,teamwork and finding a proper channel thats lets you be in charge of the series during the rest of the run.
It's EASY to just say it, and if that's all it took then there would be a couple of dozen examples of TV show adaptations that you could point to and say, "You see? THEY did it right, and so can we! We all just need to pull together and cooperate as a team." But that's just a pie-in-the-sky fantasy, and doesn't reflect the way things really work in the entertainment industry. Virtually ALL of the people who succeed in that industry do so because they are shameless self-promoters who are looking for a stepping-stone for themselves to whatever they think the next thing for them will or should be. The whole business is ego-driven by people who want to be recognized and credited for whatever they do, and that's far more important to them than any ethereal concept like "faithfully adapted from the source material". That's how they survive in that business, by getting noticed by people, not by submerging themselves beneath someone else's "vision". The whole industry is super-competitive and out for themselves, and everyone's concept of what is going to make them look good (on the screen, or in their resume) and lead them on to bigger and better things, is different than yours. It's only the really minor people who just take orders and have no real input of their own to the production, and the higher you are on the food chain, the more power you have to mess with someone else's ideas of how things should be done. The writers have no real power to demand that things be done
their way. They are paid to write what they're being TOLD to write, and that's it. And if someone doesn't agree with what they wrote... it WILL be changed, whether it's by the person who wrote it in the first place, or if he balks at the changes, someone else.
And on top of all that, the prevailing attitude is "Who cares? Nobody actually
reads comic books anyway." The only reason they bother to even license something in the first place is a concept that they like to call PRE-SOLD AUDIENCE. That means that the audience may never have read an Archie comic book, but they have some nebulous idea of what it is, and that it IS a comic book. Or if they DO know the comics, and recognize how UNfaithfully the show has 'adapted' the source material, they will watch it anyway. Regardless of what they've heard, and how bad they may fear it will be, THEY
WILL WATCH IT ANYWAY -- and in the end, that's the only real reason that the TV people are licensing the rights.
Quote from: DeCarlo Rules on January 16, 2017, 12:39:18 PM
It's EASY to just say it, and if that's all it took then there would be a couple of dozen examples of TV show adaptations that you could point to and say, "You see? THEY did it right, and so can we! We all just need to pull together and cooperate as a team." But that's just a pie-in-the-sky fantasy, and doesn't reflect the way things really work in the entertainment industry. Virtually ALL of the people who succeed in that industry do so because they are shameless self-promoters who are looking for a stepping-stone for themselves to whatever they think the next thing for them will or should be. The whole business is ego-driven by people who want to be recognized and credited for whatever they do, and that's far more important to them than any ethereal concept like "faithfully adapted from the source material". That's how they survive in that business, by getting noticed by people, not by submerging themselves beneath someone else's "vision". The whole industry is super-competitive and out for themselves, and everyone's concept of what is going to make them look good (on the screen, or in their resume) and lead them on to bigger and better things, is different than yours. It's only the really minor people who just take orders and have no real input of their own to the production, and the higher you are on the food chain, the more power you have to mess with someone else's ideas of how things should be done. The writers have no real power to demand that things be done their way. They are paid to write what they're being TOLD to write, and that's it. And if someone doesn't agree with what they wrote... it WILL be changed, whether it's by the person who wrote it in the first place, or if he balks at the changes, someone else.[/size]
That might be true but i am sure this will turn into reality.I know there might be higher ups but i can assure them and to you that i will make my sitcom faithful to the elements of the old and new comics of archie.
[/size]Quote from: DeCarlo Rules on January 16, 2017, 12:39:18 PMAnd on top of all that, the prevailing attitude is "Who cares? Nobody actually reads comic books anyway." The only reason they bother to even license something in the first place is a concept that they like to call PRE-SOLD AUDIENCE. That means that the audience may never have read an Archie comic book, but they have some nebulous idea of what it is, and that it IS a comic book. Or if they DO know the comics, and recognize how UNfaithfully the show has 'adapted' the source material, they will watch it anyway. Regardless of what they've heard, and how bad they may fear it will be, THEY WILL WATCH IT ANYWAY -- and in the end, that's the only real reason that the TV people are licensing the rights.
That might be true same with novels because they don't have illustrations in them some of them anyway.However most people also watch television and movies and read books at the same,Heck we even read news.
Quote from: terrence12 on January 14, 2017, 02:38:19 AM
Quote from: steveinthecity on January 13, 2017, 11:22:29 PM
Eggs Actly. Thank you for helping to make my point. :D
Quote from: DeCarlo Rules on January 14, 2017, 12:35:01 AMwhether the intended humor translates properly. When it doesn't though, it hardly does any good to fret about it. Just roll with it. 8)
Why you two go off topic ,It doesn't make any sense ???
Because conversation never strays organically unless you're moderated by a psychiatrist?
Quote from: steveinthecity on January 18, 2017, 12:57:19 AM
Because conversation never strays organically unless you're moderated by a psychiatrist?
Sigh...Never mind. :-\