collapse

* Random Image

WiggedOut4
WiggedOut4
Posted by: SAGG
Posted in album: SAGG

* Search


* Recent Topics

* Shoutbox

Refresh History
  • BettyReggie: 112 Days until Wednesday 10th 2018 ,  Riverdale Season #3 on The CW at 8pm.
    Today at 05:28:15 PM
  • Tuxedo Mark: And another one: [link]
    June 14, 2018, 08:42:07 PM
  • Tuxedo Mark: Riverdale spoof: [link]
    June 14, 2018, 08:35:22 PM
  • Tuxedo Mark: My review of "Roughing It!" from B&V Friends #262: [link]
    June 14, 2018, 08:12:53 PM
  • DeCarlo Rules: @irishmoxie -- It's definitely complete. All six of the 1958-59 Sy Reit/Bob White original issues, plus the feature-length "Good Guys of the Galaxy" by Tom DeFalco & Fernando Ruiz from ARCHIE #655, and three 5-page digest shorts that guest-starred Cosmo -- and the complete first issue of the Ian Flynn/Tracy Yarley COSMO (2017) thrown in for good measure. It follows the same layout/format as the previous JUGHEAD'S TIME POLICE, even though that didn't carry the "Archie Comics Presents..." trade dress. Not a bad buy for $11.
    June 14, 2018, 01:08:59 AM
  • irishmoxie: Anyone get the Cosmo book that came out today? Any good?
    June 13, 2018, 08:04:49 PM
  • Cosmo: Ah man....and I was worried I was the last enthusiast for ERB's stuff. I'm currently rereading my Dell Tarzan books. Really good fun! It took a while to complete that run.
    June 12, 2018, 06:51:53 PM
  • DeCarlo Rules: ...Marvel's earlier JOHN CARTER, WARLORD OF MARS in there, so the DE Tarzan comics need to go in a different box, and SHEENA (also a recent DE title) and DC's RIMA THE JUNGLE GIRL will help fill up that box.
    June 11, 2018, 07:40:48 PM
  • DeCarlo Rules: Recently. DE's unauthorized LORD OF THE JUNGLE Tarzan adaptations (and its authorized THE GREATEST ADVENTURE) won't fit into my existing box of previous Tarzan comics from Gold Key, DC, and Dark Horse, so I have to start a new box. Logically these get filed with DE's unauthorized WARLORD OF MARS comics (including DEJAH THORIS) and their authorized JOHN CARTER, WARLORD OF MARS. But I also want to squeeze Marve;
    June 11, 2018, 07:38:48 PM
  • DeCarlo Rules: Interesting. I tend not to group titles by publisher at all, if the characters were not created as work-for-hire (meaning the publisher is legally considered the 'author' of the character). Do they belong to that publisher's "universe" (assuming it has one)? There are some publishers like Dynamite Entertainment where the vast majority of the titles they publish are licensed, and thus were "inherited" from other publishers. Therefore it makes more sense to me to group them together in boxes with similar characters. Flash Gordon, The Phantom, and Mandrake comics (regardless of who the actual publisher was) go together in the same box because they're all classic adventure heroes licensed from Hearst Entertainment (formerly King Features Syndicate). Pulp fiction heroes like The Shadow, Doc Savage, and The Spider (regardless of the fact that the latter did not originate with the same publisher as the first two) also get grouped together. Space considerations allowing, Tarzan (and other Edgar Rice Burroughs adaptations) might share the same box with Sheena and Rima, but NOT with Ka-Zar, because he's a Marvel Universe character.
    June 11, 2018, 07:16:22 PM
  • rusty: I do keep all Star Trek series together in their own section and all Star Wars books together.  I also keep all 2000AD titles together and manga books get their own section.  For titles that have switched publishers, I usually keep them all with the publisher that I identify them with the most.  Tarzan has been published by a variety of publishers, but I keep them with Dell/Gold Key.  Conan is starting to get a bit close with all the success Dark Horse has had, but I still identify Conan more with Marvel.
    June 11, 2018, 06:27:26 PM
  • DeCarlo Rules: Believe it or not, I even have a box labeled "Pseudo-manga" that contains comics published by American companies and created by American creators like Astro Boy & Racer X (Now Comics), Battle of the Planets (Gold Key & Top Cow/Image), Captain Harlock (Malibu), Godzilla (Dark Horse) and Ultraman. I just want to keep those separate from the boxes of real translated manga in floppy comic format.
    June 11, 2018, 03:34:17 PM
  • DeCarlo Rules: Well. the problem is when you get titles with licensed characters that aren't owned by the publisher. So if you collect Star Trek comics, you'd have different series published by Gold Key, Marvel, DC, and IDW (and I probably missed one in there). It doesn't make sense to me to put them in different boxes by publisher, but to each his own. Disney comics would be another example. There are even some instances where if I like a certain artist enough, I will put all his work regardless of publisher or characters into one box, like Paul Gulacy, Steve Rude, or Mike Allred (and file them chronologically from older to newer, rather than alphabetically). Those are examples where my interest in the creator far exceeds my relative interest in whatever characters are involved.
    June 11, 2018, 03:14:29 PM
  • rusty: That makes sense.  There are many ways that people can file books.  What I do is file by company or category and then alphabetically within each section.  My first category is Richie Rich then Archie, then other Harvey titles, then Disney, then other humor/kids books, then by company (unless it is a company where I don't have very many books from them.  Star Trek and Star Wars each get their own section as well.  I will probably revamp a bit when I do my next major sort/merge.  The biggest section by far for me is DC.
    June 11, 2018, 09:28:59 AM
  • DeCarlo Rules: I don't even file my comics alphabetically. I file them according to how closely they're related to other titles, but it's all dependent on the number of issues I have of any given title, and what will fit into a single box. Fpr ACP comics I just put all the short-run series (whether an actual miniseries or just a not particularly successful title) into one box. Even though some of those short run series star Jughead, and I could as easily file those together with the main JUGHEAD title in another box. For longer running ACP titles, "girl" titles are sorted into different boxes than "boy" titles. Eventually when I have enough issues of BETTY (and BETTY AND ME and BETTY'S DIARY) they'll get their own box, and VERONICA will get her own box.
    June 10, 2018, 09:49:06 AM
  • rusty: I file Jughead under J and Reggie under R in all of their incarnations, though I do file the original Lois Lane and Jimmy Olsen books under S since that keeps them with the Superman books and also because they kept that title throughout their entire run.  If anyone wants to look up Jughead or Reggie in Overstreet, though, they will have to look under A for the early issues.
    June 10, 2018, 07:56:27 AM
  • BettyReggie: I can't wait to get that Reggie book. It's coming out the day after my 39th Birthday.
    June 10, 2018, 06:42:06 AM
  • DeCarlo Rules: Yeah, I never understood why publishers felt the need to point that out on the covers of a comic book, like maybe someone didn't really know who REGGIE was, and might buy it just because they noticed the words "Archie's Rival" above the big letters that spelled REGGIE? Same with "Archie's Pal" or "Superman's Pal" or "Superman's Girl Friend" -- like some potential buyer wouldn't know who Jughead, Jimmy Olsen, or Lois Lane was, but would know who Archie or Superman was? Just assume you're selling the product to idiots, I guess. Is anyone really filing REGGIE under "A" for Archie's Pal in their collections??
    June 10, 2018, 05:42:02 AM
  • rusty: In it's first incarnation, Reggie was titled ARCHIE'S RIVAL, REGGIE.  It wasn't until after the title was resurrected nearly a decade later that it became REGGIE and then REGGIE AND ME.
    June 09, 2018, 10:23:13 PM
  • Tuxedo Mark: I've never understood why those old titles had "and Me" in them, anyway. Why not just name the titles after the starring characters?
    June 09, 2018, 08:17:45 PM


Author Topic: Betty and Veronica #3  (Read 2796 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Vegan Jughead

Betty and Veronica #3
« on: June 21, 2017, 07:47:54 AM »
I just got around to reading the new issue of Betty and Veronica.  Despite the ridiculously long wait since issue 2, I think this one was worth it and definitely the best issue yet.  It kind of wraps up the story, so who knows if Adam Hughes is slated to do any more B&V? 


I thought this one had more humor than the previous 2.  I was a little lukewarm on those.  Hot Dog's interludes were better too. 

irishmoxie

Re: Betty and Veronica #3
« Reply #1 on: June 21, 2017, 09:50:17 AM »
After nearly a year long wait, it was eh for me. He was trying to make it like a movie with the fire and all that. I really hope they relaunch the series with a new writer and artist. I would love to see it marketed to females this time.

BettyReggie

Re: Betty and Veronica #3
« Reply #2 on: June 21, 2017, 11:24:18 AM »
I only preorder the 2 main covers with just Betty & just Veronica. They are coming from Midtown Comics, I get a monthly shipment so I see them until the first Saturday in July. I preorder those 2 issues on July 22, 2016 that was 333 days ago.

steveinthecity

Re: Betty and Veronica #3
« Reply #3 on: June 21, 2017, 06:01:18 PM »
I just got around to reading the new issue of Betty and Veronica.  Despite the ridiculously long wait since issue 2, I think this one was worth it and definitely the best issue yet.  It kind of wraps up the story, so who knows if Adam Hughes is slated to do any more B&V? 


I thought this one had more humor than the previous 2.  I was a little lukewarm on those.  Hot Dog's interludes were better too.
I was certainly disappointed with the conclusion and the way it was handled.  Seemed like a cheap way to wrap up a storyline and I doubt this was how Hughes and/or the editor(s) planned this story to go.  Shades of the "Farewell" story arc from the previous B & V series.  I'll re-read the three issues in succession later to see if the story flows (reads) better.

As I've already posted, Hughes has stated he is off the book, so I wouldn't expect to see him again at ACP unless he's brought in to do a cover. 



After nearly a year long wait, it was eh for me. He was trying to make it like a movie with the fire and all that. I really hope they relaunch the series with a new writer and artist. I would love to see it marketed to females this time.
I think "eh" is apt.  I was expecting more, so I'm obviously going to be a bit bent over the conclusion and bringing in Hughes to begin with as many predicted this pairing of Mr. Hughes with these characters wouldn't work out.   :P

How was this book not marketed towards females?  I must have missed all the beer, fisticuffs, and gratuitous shots of the gal's nether regions that would otherwise market this book to me, a manly man of many manly interests.

I'd go back to chopping logs but I just had my nails buffed at Annabelle's Tips and Toes Salon, so I'll just read some Simon & Kirby romance comics until my Conan Masterworks arrives from Amazon.
  ;)
Comics!

DeCarlo Rules

Re: Betty and Veronica #3
« Reply #4 on: June 22, 2017, 03:47:23 AM »
It did feel as though the conclusion to Hughes' B&V arc was rewritten on the fly -- as if to specifically address criticisms of the earlier issues in the series. Specifically: Betty swearing, Veronica's "ultrabitch" attitude, even Hot Dog's unnecessary garrulous ramblings (severely curtailed in this final issue of the arc). Let's just say I'm a little disingenuous about the idea that this is what Adam Hughes had in mind from the very start. And we STILL have no explanation of how the two girls (rivals from the point of Veronica's introduction in ARCHIE, and his breakup with Betty as the ex-gf) became such solid friends. They just ARE in the New Riverdale universe, as if we're supposed to import that information as "given" from the classic Archie stories. The whole conclusion had a very stinky deus ex machina taint to it.

Also I'm not happy about the characterization of Hiram Lodge as a King Midas or Ebeneezer Scrooge-like heartless/moneygrubbing CEO (which may well be in continuity with how he's being portrayed in ARCHIE for all I know). Mr. Lodge is ultimately cast as the villain of this story, which doesn't sit right with me. In classic Archie stories, Mr. Lodge (despite whatever his personal feeling are towards Archie) always came off as a more worldly, enlightened/progressive, and mainly philanthropic businessman who actually cared about his community, and wasn't bound to class distinctions. In direct contrast to how he's portrayed in this story, in classic Archie stories, it's more often Mr. Lodge who has to teach Veronica a lesson about putting on airs or feeling superior to others because of her wealth, as for example, it's often given as the reason Mr. Lodge prefers Veronica to attend a public high school, rather than an exclusive private school.
« Last Edit: June 22, 2017, 04:02:16 AM by DeCarlo Rules »

Vegan Jughead

Re: Betty and Veronica #3
« Reply #5 on: June 22, 2017, 06:49:32 AM »
Oh well, sorry y'all were disappointed.  I was pleasantly surprised. 

Tuxedo Mark

Re: Betty and Veronica #3
« Reply #6 on: June 22, 2017, 10:25:15 AM »
And we STILL have no explanation of how the two girls (rivals from the point of Veronica's introduction in ARCHIE, and his breakup with Betty as the ex-gf) became such solid friends. They just ARE in the New Riverdale universe, as if we're supposed to import that information as "given" from the classic Archie stories.

I haven't bought #3. I haven't even read my physical copy of #2 yet, because I was put off by Hot Dog's narration (why the hell is Hot Dog narrating a B&V comic?) - especially the "joke" about two pages of a $4 comic book having minimal artwork and just a text summary of the "missing" pages.

As for B&V being friends, I think we're supposed to disregard the "Archie" title (after all, Veronica hasn't been shipped off); each New Riverdale title seems to be its own continuity. It's basically like they went "Here are Betty and Veronica; you know who they are; LET'S GO!"

I'm not a fan of the approach, but I've seen it done elsewhere, mostly in comic adaptations of TV properties, such as back when Dreamwave had the Transformers license. They set it in a vague cartoon-like continuity but didn't adhere to specific details; they just didn't want to rebuild everything.

There's also "Superman Returns", which used the first two Christopher Reeve Superman films as a "vague history" (director's words).
BV-kiss-small
Riverdale Reviewed
http://riverdalereviewed.wordpress.com
Every episode of "Riverdale", "The New Archies", and "Archie's Weird Mysteries" reviewed.
My digital wish list
https://www.amazon.com/gp/registry/wishlist/14FS742SI1R5I

Bluto

Re: Betty and Veronica #3
« Reply #7 on: June 22, 2017, 10:36:34 AM »
Oh well, sorry y'all were disappointed.  I was pleasantly surprised.
I, too, enjoyed all his issues, but then I really don't care about continuity between titles in the Archie universe. I just want to be entertained and I was.

DeCarlo Rules

Re: Betty and Veronica #3
« Reply #8 on: June 22, 2017, 01:31:47 PM »

As for B&V being friends, I think we're supposed to disregard the "Archie" title (after all, Veronica hasn't been shipped off); each New Riverdale title seems to be its own continuity. It's basically like they went "Here are Betty and Veronica; you know who they are; LET'S GO!"


But DO we know who they are? That seems to be the very thrust of the storyline, what it's playing on, that sort of rebootish uncertainty of "You only THINK you know B&V!" It seems they're playing on the "anything could happen" aspect of a reboot to set up the B VERSUS V situation, which wouldn't be the least bit believable (or fool anyone) in a classic Archie story -- not with the tone taken in this story -- but in the New Riverdale? Who knows?? So the 3rd issue revelation/reversal of "Fooled ya! They were/are/and will always be BFFs Forever!" comes across as a cheap theatrical trick.

Additional layers of confusion are merely added by the fact that all the New Riverdale titles seem to look like they belong to the same universe, and vague cross-references have appeared here and there, along with some commonalities. Yet there is nothing distinctly pointing to the titles NOT being in the same universe, either. It's only when the stories are closely examined that we can discover that things just don't line up between them, but it's subtle and non-obvious unless you dig deeper. Just because the stories don't take place at the same TIME as each other, doesn't necessarily imply that they don't share the same universe... (how could they even possibly, with ACP's infamous delays in scheduling?) Yet it's difficult to pin down exactly what is the distinction between the characters in one title, and another in the New Riverdale line.

Tuxedo Mark

Re: Betty and Veronica #3
« Reply #9 on: June 26, 2017, 12:15:03 PM »
I just read #2, and I have a few questions:

It did feel as though the conclusion to Hughes' B&V arc was rewritten on the fly -- as if to specifically address criticisms of the earlier issues in the series. Specifically: Betty swearing

When, exactly, did Betty swear in either of the first two issues?

Veronica's "ultrabitch" attitude

Why would this even be criticized? Veronica has often been an "ultrabitch" through the decades.
BV-kiss-small
Riverdale Reviewed
http://riverdalereviewed.wordpress.com
Every episode of "Riverdale", "The New Archies", and "Archie's Weird Mysteries" reviewed.
My digital wish list
https://www.amazon.com/gp/registry/wishlist/14FS742SI1R5I

Tuxedo Mark

Re: Betty and Veronica #3
« Reply #10 on: June 26, 2017, 12:31:17 PM »
Additional layers of confusion are merely added by the fact that all the New Riverdale titles seem to look like they belong to the same universe, and vague cross-references have appeared here and there, along with some commonalities. Yet there is nothing distinctly pointing to the titles NOT being in the same universe, either. It's only when the stories are closely examined that we can discover that things just don't line up between them, but it's subtle and non-obvious unless you dig deeper.

I just read #2 and was surprised to see Cheryl there. I guess, if it's supposed to take place in the same universe as the "Archie" title, it occurs only after Veronica's return to Riverdale. It occurs in autumn of 2016, so I guess it's supposed to be the following school year, placing those Veronica-in-Switzerland issues in the 2015-2016 school year.

But Cheryl is working for Veronica (washing cars) and calling her "coach". I can't imagine the Cheryl of the "Archie" title (or any version of Cheryl, actually) doing that.
BV-kiss-small
Riverdale Reviewed
http://riverdalereviewed.wordpress.com
Every episode of "Riverdale", "The New Archies", and "Archie's Weird Mysteries" reviewed.
My digital wish list
https://www.amazon.com/gp/registry/wishlist/14FS742SI1R5I

DeCarlo Rules

Re: Betty and Veronica #3
« Reply #11 on: June 26, 2017, 01:00:24 PM »
I just read #2, and I have a few questions:

It did feel as though the conclusion to Hughes' B&V arc was rewritten on the fly -- as if to specifically address criticisms of the earlier issues in the series. Specifically: Betty swearing

When, exactly, did Betty swear in either of the first two issues?

Comic book swearing. Where it's indicated by a bunch of unintelligible symbols, not spelled out. Betty feels embarrassed about it in issue #3 when the truth  about the big "feud" comes out.

Veronica's "ultrabitch" attitude

Why would this even be criticized? Veronica has often been an "ultrabitch" through the decades.

Not this bad since at least the mid-'80s, and it's never been sustained over so many pages for a single story. It's just beyond the pale.

Which is why Hughes feels compelled to pointedly reveal that both Betty's swearing and Veronica's over-the-top bitchiness are, in fact, part of an elaborately-staged, long-sustained role-playing scheme. Spoiler for those who haven't read it. Sorry.

Which explains why it's easy to fool the readers, because we don't know if we really know THIS B&V. It's the very first story of a rebooted continuity for the characters, and we have no idea which way the writer's going with these parallel-universe counterparts to the B&V we're familiar with. If it's not the way they'd normally act though, why didn't any of their closest friends have the slightest clue?

DeCarlo Rules

Re: Betty and Veronica #3
« Reply #12 on: June 26, 2017, 01:33:47 PM »
Additional layers of confusion are merely added by the fact that all the New Riverdale titles seem to look like they belong to the same universe, and vague cross-references have appeared here and there, along with some commonalities. Yet there is nothing distinctly pointing to the titles NOT being in the same universe, either. It's only when the stories are closely examined that we can discover that things just don't line up between them, but it's subtle and non-obvious unless you dig deeper.

I just read #2 and was surprised to see Cheryl there. I guess, if it's supposed to take place in the same universe as the "Archie" title, it occurs only after Veronica's return to Riverdale. It occurs in autumn of 2016, so I guess it's supposed to be the following school year, placing those Veronica-in-Switzerland issues in the 2015-2016 school year.

That's exactly what I mean. They're sort of the same, yet they're not, either. You can only discover the latter by dissecting the stories and trying to figure out if they can possibly inhabit the same universe, but at the same time, there's nothing obviously signalling the reader that they're NOT part of the same universe, until you examine all the little details.

But Cheryl is working for Veronica (washing cars) and calling her "coach". I can't imagine the Cheryl of the "Archie" title (or any version of Cheryl, actually) doing that.

Fair enough. And _I_ can't imagine any version of Betty I'm familiar with that's like the social justice warrior (what a drag!) portrayed in JUGHEAD.

So now it's like a murky question of which is it:

A) "Well, we just decided to go a different way here with the New Riverdale comics. OUR version of Jughead is self-identifying as asexual."

B) No, it's just plain BAD charaterization. The writers don't really know the classic versions of the characters beyond a superficial familiarity, so they're making up new characterizations for them as they go along.

C) "Hey, whatever works for the story. Let's not get hung up on details." Refer back to B.

D) "Well, obviously... DUH. Because it's a different universe. Oh, excuse me, I meant to say they're ALL different universes. Every single title. But we're not exactly going to come right out and say THAT, just in case some people might not like the idea."

I'm okay with it either way, as long as they don't start doing stories that cross over from one title to another. What I'm NOT okay with is having to guess at their intentions. I could live with some changes in art and storytelling style (presuming I LIKE those in the first place) if the characterizations stayed the same, but they seem to want to have that leeway for "interpretation" as well.

 


The Archie character names and likenesses are covered by the registered trademarks/copyrights of Archie Comic Publications, Inc. and are used with permission by this site. The Official Archie Comics website can be visited at www.archiecomics.com.
Live Support