Hi all-
Do we know if Betty and Veronica will continue after issue 3, or is it cancelled? Can find nothing on the web other than Adam Hughes will no longer be involved. Thanks!
Quote from: Ryanarcher on August 12, 2017, 07:13:49 AM
Hi all-
Do we know if Betty and Veronica will continue after issue 3, or is it cancelled? Can find nothing on the web other than Adam Hughes will no longer be involved. Thanks!
I think it's on hiatus,I think.
No, I think what you're getting for B&V is discrete limited series:
Adam Hughes' Betty & Veronica
Harley & Ivy Meet Betty & Veronica
Betty & Veronica: Vixens
Presumably the latter title could be extended into a continuing series, if sales were particularly good, but initially ACP's contract with the creators would specify a story arc composed of a specific number of issues (usually 4 to 6, to make a collected edition reprint possible). On the other hand, if sales projections don't look that promising after a couple of issues, then it's already time to get back to work brainstorming some new angle or spin on the characters, so they can have something to promote and create awareness of that important character franchise.
In the case of Adam Hughes' reboot, I think ACP was fully aware when they started that they would not be able to afford Hughes' services on a continuing series, but they decided to invest the money in his talent as a boost to what they may have foreseen as an ongoing relaunched title... only the delay between issues and mixed critical reactions to the series may have torpedoed that original vision. Those huge 6-month gaps between issues effectively killed whatever momentum that title might have built, resulting in a huge drop in sales with issue #3, so at that point ACP probably decided that a complete do-over was the best option, to distance the characters from any bad feelings. They might have continued with #4 had there been a visible anticipation among readers building with Hughes' 3 issue arc, but reader reaction in general said that a lot of them had soured on it by the time it concluded. Any continuation of the series beyond Hughes' 3 issues would have been very iffy and dependent on readers' reception to the new creative team anyway.
I'm pretty sure we'll see a Your Pal Archie-style Betty and Veronica before long.
The first issue of Adam Hughes' Betty and Veronica sold a ton because those two names are very popular, more than Archie himself.
It would be crazy for Archie Comics not to bring a near-classic Betty and Veronica to market soon.
Thanks, everyone. I agree with all of you. I guess what I am also asking is, even if we all pretty much can assume the title is cancelled, has there been official word to that effect? Because nothing has been said officially, to the best of my knowledge. Thanks again to all!
Quote from: Ryanarcher on August 12, 2017, 07:05:03 PM
Thanks, everyone. I agree with all of you. I guess what I am also asking is, even if we all pretty much can assume the title is cancelled, has there been official word to that effect? Because nothing has been said officially, to the best of my knowledge. Thanks again to all!
That's just sort of the standard ACP operating procedure. They definitely prefer to get some positive publicity hype going as soon as possible for whatever their next forthcoming project is, and move ahead and forget whatever failure may have just occurred, or whatever solicitation for an intended product was quietly cancelled without alerting anyone but distributors and retailers to that fact. One thing you won't ever be reading in an ACP comic book news story is "We're sorry to report..." or "We regret to inform our fans...". From a business perspective, they prefer to ignore the negative facts and pretend they never happened.
To be absolutely fair to ACP, technically no one can factually claim that
Betty & Veronica was "cancelled", because that would be contingent on the company actually having solicited for orders an issue #4 of that title, and later failed to publish it. Can the company be blamed if readers of issue numbers 1 through 3 of B&V simply
assumed, because nothing had been said regarding the word "miniseries" or "limited series", that there was an ongoing title to cancel?
Quote from: Vegan Jughead on August 12, 2017, 06:27:52 PM
I'm pretty sure we'll see a Your Pal Archie-style Betty and Veronica before long.
I wish I had your optimism about it, Vegan. I'm more worried right now about how many issues of YPA we can get before the plug is pulled. Ideally I would wish for "more than 22", but... comic shop consumers seem to give any kind of humor series a chilly reception.
Quote from: DeCarlo Rules on August 13, 2017, 04:16:53 PM
Quote from: Vegan Jughead on August 12, 2017, 06:27:52 PM
I'm pretty sure we'll see a Your Pal Archie-style Betty and Veronica before long.
I wish I had your optimism about it, Vegan. I'm more worried right now about how many issues of YPA we can get before the plug is pulled. Ideally I would wish for "more than 22", but... comic shop consumers seem to give any kind of humor series a chilly reception.
Oh you didn't know YPA is already just a 5 issue miniseries? Dan Parent says it "might" go further, but as I said before he hinted at another series or something and maybe that will be B&V. I just can't see Archie having Vixens be the only Betty and Veronica product. B&V are their most popular characters.
Quote from: Vegan Jughead on August 13, 2017, 04:52:19 PM
Quote from: DeCarlo Rules on August 13, 2017, 04:16:53 PM
Quote from: Vegan Jughead on August 12, 2017, 06:27:52 PM
I'm pretty sure we'll see a Your Pal Archie-style Betty and Veronica before long.
I wish I had your optimism about it, Vegan. I'm more worried right now about how many issues of YPA we can get before the plug is pulled. Ideally I would wish for "more than 22", but... comic shop consumers seem to give any kind of humor series a chilly reception.
Oh you didn't know YPA is already just a 5 issue miniseries? Dan Parent says it "might" go further, but as I said before he hinted at another series or something and maybe that will be B&V. I just can't see Archie having Vixens be the only Betty and Veronica product. B&V are their most popular characters.
Oh, I know the initial contract for YPA is just 5 issues. But I'd assume that any similar take on B&V would be contingent on whether or not YPA is able to sustain an audience, so it hardly seems likely to me that if YPA doesn't sell well enough, it would be replaced by a B&V title in the same style. Even IF such a title were to materialize, I'd hardly expect it to run more than 4 or 5 issues, or sell any better than YPA. To be honest, I really don't expect that YPA will run more than the initial allotment of 5 issues, sad to say. That's why it seems to me that you're being overly optimistic about the chances for a similar B&V title. I'd love to be wrong about that, but realistically, the odds don't seem good. I doubt that VIXENS will turn out to be an ongoing title, either.
I'm not quite convinced that B&V are currently more popular as their own franchise than ARCHIE. I think that you can certainly point to where that was the case for many years, but now...? I'm not sure if that's still true. It's true that the last ongoing floppy comic in the classic style to be cancelled was B&V, which continued for a few more issues after ARCHIE #666, but that's because they'd already committed to Michael Uslan's multi-part story. And while the classic ARCHIE title was replaced two months later by a newly rebooted #1 issue, after B&V ended with #278, it took a whole nine months before Adam Hughes' rebooted 1st issue appeared -- not to mention the 6-month gaps between issues 1 & 2, and 2 & 3. For "their most popular characters", it's awfully strange that ACP would allow so few issues of B&V to appear in the space of two years. THREE issues in 2 years?? Granted AH is slow and they knew that, but couldn't they have done something else with the characters to fill the gap? I can see that you're upset about the
Vixens idea, but in reality if it follows fairly closely on the heels of the
Harley & Ivy Meet Betty & Veronica miniseries, it will be a lot more issues of B&V than we've seen in a long time.
Those first couple of Adam Hughes B&V issues did more than respectable numbers in sales, but I'd say that had a lot more to do with Adam Hughes than with the B&V name. Still nowhere near as impressive as the sales on the initial issues of the rebooted Archie title, either. Or even on "The Death of Archie".
It might still be the case that B&V Double Digest outsells any of the Archie digests, but I'm not entirely convinced of that.
World of Archie and
Archie Double Digest are still at the 10x/yearly frequency, and while
B&V Double Digest is still 10x/yearly,
B&V Friends is only 6x/yearly. I have no real proof, but I'd suspect that either WoA or Archie Double Digest is now the best-selling of the digest titles.
Looking at the trade collections from the last ten years, the preponderance of titles released have the ARCHIE logo on the cover in large letters, and there have been relatively few B&V collections by comparison. Perhaps most tellingly, to date there has still been no trade collection of that last "Farewell, Betty & Veronica" multi-part storyline. All of the comparable multi-part Archie storylines got trade collections. No TP collections for those Jughead multi-parters "Jughead Jones, Semi-Private Eye" and "A Jughead in the Family" (a.k.a. "Movin' In") either.
I think ACP thought that the new reboot of
Archie would lead to an entire line of ongoing titles featuring all of the characters who traditionally had had ongoing titles. I hate to say it, but with the cancellation of the New Riverdale iterations of
Reggie and Me,
Jughead, and
Josie, it seems fated not to be. There seems to be just enough of an audience to support ONE ongoing title in the floppy comic format, and right now that title is
Archie. I don't think
The Archies or
Jughead: The Hunger will last, either. I'm sure they'll continue to come up with one-shots and miniseries re-imagining the characters in various different situations, along the lines of AWA (which published its last issue a year ago) and
Vixens, but they're all "novelty acts" destined for short runs, no matter how much of a happy face Jon Goldwater tries to put on the situation with his claims of having brilliantly re-invented the company for the 21st Century.
Now that I think about it, the whole Adam Hughes' B&V thing has been pretty disastrous for the company. What were they thinking, trying to publish Reggie and Josie titles before they could even get an ongoing (as in published at least bi-monthly) Betty and Veronica title established as a stable title?
Instead, what B&V contributed to the company was 3 issues that took an entire year to come out. That is bad. It's worse for a company that already publishes two other "ongoing" titles that only manage to come out once a year: Afterlife With Archie and Chilling Adventures of Sabrina. It sends THIS message to the consumers: "Don't get involved. It will only lead to frustration. They love to promise more than they can actually deliver. It's not worth the grief."
If they'd been thinking, they would have made a B&V title the very next priority after the rebooted Archie. Get a stable creative team that will commit to the title for at least 12 issues, and can deliver pages on time every 6 weeks, or less. Jughead should have been title #3, and once that was up and running, THEN, and only then, with both Archie and B&V coming out on a regular basis, something like Josie, or Reggie, or Veronica, or Betty, or Sabrina. Not too quickly... they should have let B&V build for a year before the next big title, Jughead. Then another 6-8 months before the next title, but only once they'd established some stability.
Between AWA, ChAoS, B&V, and all the various solicit-then-cancel products, they torpedoed any credibility they might have had as a publisher.
Quote from: DeCarlo Rules on August 14, 2017, 02:49:47 PM
Now that I think about it, the whole Adam Hughes' B&V thing has been pretty disastrous for the company. ... what B&V contributed to the company was 3 issues that took an entire year to come out. That is bad. ... Get a stable creative team that will commit to the title for at least 12 issues, and can deliver pages on time every 6 weeks, or less.
This has me wondering why writers and/or artists can get away with slow work in the first place. Shouldn't it be built into their contracts: "You will provide the script and/or artwork on this schedule, or the contract is terminated"?
Quote from: Tuxedo Mark on August 14, 2017, 03:33:47 PM
Quote from: DeCarlo Rules on August 14, 2017, 02:49:47 PM
Now that I think about it, the whole Adam Hughes' B&V thing has been pretty disastrous for the company. ... what B&V contributed to the company was 3 issues that took an entire year to come out. That is bad. ... Get a stable creative team that will commit to the title for at least 12 issues, and can deliver pages on time every 6 weeks, or less.
This has me wondering why writers and/or artists can get away with slow work in the first place. Shouldn't it be built into their contracts: "You will provide the script and/or artwork on this schedule, or the contract is terminated"?
Depends on who you think was in the power position in that particular instance. Adam Hughes does not NEED a paycheck from Archie Comics.
Someone at ACP decided THEY needed Adam Hughes. The problem was they felt they needed him too badly, and were willing to wait for his work as long as it took. They set themselves up for disaster... after advertising an Adam Hughes story, what are they going to do when issue #2 isn't done by the contractual deadline? "Cancel the contract"?? Oh yeah, and then just get someone else to write & draw issue #2. That's going to make them look like total idiots, advertising Adam Hughes and then pulling the old "bait & switch"... upon which, sales immediately plummet like a stone. So it was no-win for them once they committed to riding the AH!-train. You know what a company like DC Comics would have done? They would have paid Adam Hughes his money IF they were committed to needing him for whatever project. And they would have waited. Waited until he delivered all his work, or was close enough to completing the final issue, before scheduling and soliciting the first issue. And if you're DC Comics, you can do that because you have the money to pay Adam Hughes for 3 issues of a comic book upfront. If you're Archie Comic Publications, you're living from one printer's bill to the next, and one check from Diamond Comic Distributors to the next. You can't pay this guy what you owe him until you get that money you were expecting from that last comic you published.
Just like
someone at ACP decided that Mr. Big-Shot TV Writer Roberto Aguirre-Sacasa needed to be courted and wooed (
"Ooooo! We'll make you Chief Creative Officer!"), and you do NOT dictate terms to the guy you're begging to get your intellectual properties on TV.
If you're someone like Ian Flynn (who is a fine writer, and I mean him no disrespect for using him as an example), you probably can't afford to be a temperamental artiste who can only write when his creative muse inspires him, because you know they can hire someone else to do the job for the same money.
Quote from: DeCarlo Rules on August 14, 2017, 02:49:47 PM
Now that I think about it, the whole Adam Hughes' B&V thing has been pretty disastrous for the company. What were they thinking, trying to publish Reggie and Josie titles before they could even get an ongoing (as in published at least bi-monthly) Betty and Veronica title established as a stable title?
Instead, what B&V contributed to the company was 3 issues that took an entire year to come out. That is bad. It's worse for a company that already publishes two other "ongoing" titles that only manage to come out once a year: Afterlife With Archie and Chilling Adventures of Sabrina. It sends THIS message to the consumers: "Don't get involved. It will only lead to frustration. They love to promise more than they can actually deliver. It's not worth the grief."
If they'd been thinking, they would have made a B&V title the very next priority after the rebooted Archie. Get a stable creative team that will commit to the title for at least 12 issues, and can deliver pages on time every 6 weeks, or less. Jughead should have been title #3, and once that was up and running, THEN, and only then, with both Archie and B&V coming out on a regular basis, something like Josie, or Reggie, or Veronica, or Betty, or Sabrina. Not too quickly... they should have let B&V build for a year before the next big title, Jughead. Then another 6-8 months before the next title, but only once they'd established some stability.
Between AWA, ChAoS, B&V, and all the various solicit-then-cancel products, they torpedoed any credibility they might have had as a publisher.
Heh. "ChAos". "Chaos", as in what is happening at ACP. Quite the Freudian slip there, DR. Or was it? ;D
Quote from: SAGG on August 14, 2017, 10:41:53 PM
Heh. "ChAos". "Chaos", as in what is happening at ACP. Quite the Freudian slip there, DR. Or was it? ;D
Chaos (
or "Khaos") Magick is another name for Black Magic, SAGG. I'm not sure, but I think it may have originated as RPGing terminology, since "alignments" with either Order or Chaos are important character attributes in game characters. (A magician, sorcerer, warlock or witch aligned with Order would be a user of White Magick.) A Chaos magician is increasing the balance of Chaos over Order in the universe by helping spread disorder and disharmony.
When
Chilling Adventures of Sabrina first came out, I realized that was going to be too long to type more than once, so I went for an acronym, the same as people started abbreviating
Afterlife With Archie as AWA. "CAS" may be even shorter, but it just isn't as serendipitous as "ChAoS" for
Chilling
Adventures
of
Sabrina, and I've been abbreviating it that way every time I have had occasion to comment on it since it debuted. I don't call it merely "Sabrina" to distinguish it from
Sabrina the Teenage Witch, which I've been known to comment on from time to time, possibly even within a post discussing ChAoS -- and in my mind at least, the two Sabrinas are really completely different characters.
I asked Adam Hughes on twitter who is working on B&V #4 . He said Rachael Stott is working on it.
Quote from: DeCarlo Rules on August 15, 2017, 02:44:34 PM
Quote from: SAGG on August 14, 2017, 10:41:53 PM
Heh. "ChAos". "Chaos", as in what is happening at ACP. Quite the Freudian slip there, DR. Or was it? ;D
Chaos (or "Khaos") Magick is another name for Black Magic, SAGG. I'm not sure, but I think it may have originated as RPGing terminology, since "alignments" with either Order or Chaos are important character attributes in game characters. (A magician, sorcerer, warlock or witch aligned with Order would be a user of White Magick.) A Chaos magician is increasing the balance of Chaos over Order in the universe by helping spread disorder and disharmony.
When Chilling Adventures of Sabrina first came out, I realized that was going to be too long to type more than once, so I went for an acronym, the same as people started abbreviating Afterlife With Archie as AWA. "CAS" may be even shorter, but it just isn't as serendipitous as "ChAoS" for Chilling Adventures of Sabrina, and I've been abbreviating it that way every time I have had occasion to comment on it since it debuted. I don't call it merely "Sabrina" to distinguish it from Sabrina the Teenage Witch, which I've been known to comment on from time to time, possibly even within a post discussing ChAoS -- and in my mind at least, the two Sabrinas are really completely different characters.
I was just being facetious, DR. You know, tongue in cheek....
Quote from: SAGG on August 15, 2017, 10:37:31 PM
Quote from: DeCarlo Rules on August 15, 2017, 02:44:34 PM
Quote from: SAGG on August 14, 2017, 10:41:53 PM
Heh. "ChAos". "Chaos", as in what is happening at ACP. Quite the Freudian slip there, DR. Or was it? ;D
Chaos (or "Khaos") Magick is another name for Black Magic, SAGG. I'm not sure, but I think it may have originated as RPGing terminology, since "alignments" with either Order or Chaos are important character attributes in game characters. (A magician, sorcerer, warlock or witch aligned with Order would be a user of White Magick.) A Chaos magician is increasing the balance of Chaos over Order in the universe by helping spread disorder and disharmony.
When Chilling Adventures of Sabrina first came out, I realized that was going to be too long to type more than once, so I went for an acronym, the same as people started abbreviating Afterlife With Archie as AWA. "CAS" may be even shorter, but it just isn't as serendipitous as "ChAoS" for Chilling Adventures of Sabrina, and I've been abbreviating it that way every time I have had occasion to comment on it since it debuted. I don't call it merely "Sabrina" to distinguish it from Sabrina the Teenage Witch, which I've been known to comment on from time to time, possibly even within a post discussing ChAoS -- and in my mind at least, the two Sabrinas are really completely different characters.
I was just being facetious, DR. You know, tongue in cheek....
It seemed like you thought I was making a subtle commentary on the state of the company, but I've been using the acronym for some time now. Not that the company has been anything less than chaotic in the entire time
Chilling Adventures of Sabrina has been in existence...
It's chaos of their own making, because they fail to have any real vision for anything but the short-term. They keep asking themselves what kind of gimmick can they come up with next to get some fan-buzz or awareness, but they really only have the most nebulous concept of what kind of company they are, or what kind of comics it is that they publish... or
should publish. It's all bluster and swagger, and trying to talk a good game. Their only publishing philosophy seems to be "Archie can be anything, and currently it's whatever we decide to say it is." Jon Goldwater loves to talk it up like we're living in the Renaissance period of ACP, but the truth of the matter is that they are taking in less and less profit on floppy comics every year, and they've been on a downhill slide since the peak sales of Archie #1 in 2015. The number of cancellations of newly-solicited products has never been higher, but particularly for titles in the floppy comic format. The bulk of their profit is still being derived from
reprints -- the digest titles, and trade collections. IMO the company's biggest conceptual mistake is in deciding to hinge its future on the direct market and the floppy comic format. They should be directing all their efforts outside of that market, because that's where their real audience is found. That means they have to forge new distribution alliances and partnerships, and develop new content in other formats for audiences outside of comic shops. If they really really can't be dissuaded from pinning all their hopes on the direct market and the floppy format, then their best bet would be to forget all about Archie and create entirely new titles and characters for that market from scratch, and change the company name, because "Archie" is exactly what's holding them back from being taken seriously by those consumers. But then they would be faced with the challenge of actually having to
create new things out of whole cloth, a concept that clearly petrifies them.