collapse

* Random Image

HFITS21
HFITS21
Posted by: SAGG
Posted in album: SAGG

* Search


* Recent Topics

Riverdale Reviewed by Tuxedo Mark
[June 23, 2018, 08:21:21 PM]


What comics have you been reading? by BettyReggie
[June 23, 2018, 11:07:38 AM]


Betty and Veronica Vixens coming to an end with issue 10 by Tuxedo Mark
[June 22, 2018, 07:30:30 PM]


Library Books That You All Read by BettyReggie
[June 22, 2018, 05:11:06 PM]


Riverdale TV Series by johnsonjames
[June 22, 2018, 09:18:46 AM]


Latest Hauls, what did you buy? by BettyReggie
[June 21, 2018, 09:13:43 PM]


Days we look foward to as Archie Fans. by BettyReggie
[June 20, 2018, 05:26:49 PM]


What have you done today? by Archiecomicxfan215
[June 20, 2018, 12:55:56 AM]


ARCHIE COMICS FOR NOVEMBER 2017 by Tough guy21
[June 19, 2018, 01:52:27 PM]


What is to become of me and my collection? by JanaRonnie
[June 18, 2018, 05:16:32 AM]

* Shoutbox

Refresh History
  • Tuxedo Mark: <y review of the new story "Romance 4Ever!": [link]
    June 23, 2018, 08:21:59 PM
  • rusty: My copies of Archie at Riverdale and Cosmo should be here in about a week and a half from DCBS
    June 23, 2018, 07:35:50 PM
  • BettyReggie: My monthly Midtown Comics came today.
    June 22, 2018, 05:11:54 PM
  • Vegan Jughead: I'm gonna get it but I'm waiting for it to be at Barnes and Noble which I think will be July 10th or so. They released it to the direct market (comic shops) first.
    June 22, 2018, 09:15:13 AM
  • irishmoxie: Anyone get Archie at Riverdale Vol 1?
    June 21, 2018, 09:43:56 PM
  • BettyReggie: 112 Days until Wednesday 10th 2018 ,  Riverdale Season #3 on The CW at 8pm.
    June 20, 2018, 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


Author Topic: Betty checks out a girl  (Read 1766 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Tuxedo Mark

Betty checks out a girl
« on: May 22, 2017, 03:36:27 PM »
I just came across this gem in SAGG's gallery:

The selected media item is not currently available.
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 checks out a girl
« Reply #1 on: May 23, 2017, 09:22:43 PM »
Women (and even some men) can appreciate physical beauty in a detached way that has nothing to do with sexual attraction, because in general social conditioning tends to make them a lot less homophobic than men as a gender.

Re: Betty checks out a girl
« Reply #2 on: May 25, 2017, 01:08:11 AM »
Women (and even some men) can appreciate physical beauty in a detached way that has nothing to do with sexual attraction, because in general social conditioning tends to make them a lot less homophobic than men as a gender.

That's a perfectly rational explanation, but it's not very comical. The fun of taking it out of context is that we can explain it in whatever other ways we want, isn't it?

DeCarlo Rules

Re: Betty checks out a girl
« Reply #3 on: May 25, 2017, 02:05:37 AM »
Women (and even some men) can appreciate physical beauty in a detached way that has nothing to do with sexual attraction, because in general social conditioning tends to make them a lot less homophobic than men as a gender.

That's a perfectly rational explanation, but it's not very comical. The fun of taking it out of context is that we can explain it in whatever other ways we want, isn't it?

But of course it plays into the whole Riverdale thing, and the actors playing B & V, too.

Maybe I just wasn't clear on why implied LGBT is comical by default. I mean, KEVIN KELLER is a comical comic book, but it's not comical because of Kevin's sexual orientation. And then there's the whole Ginger Lopez/Nancy Woods thing in AWA, which if anything, is the opposite of comical (kinda creepy, actually... Ginger in that one is more like a stalker).

I guess different people find humor in different things. Maybe to someone it's comical by virtue of the fact everything else we know about Betty says she isn't L/G, or maybe it's just matter-of-fact, depending on how you look at it... because not everything in even a classic Archie story is funny by default.

Re: Betty checks out a girl
« Reply #4 on: May 26, 2017, 06:34:29 AM »

Maybe I just wasn't clear on why implied LGBT is comical by default. I mean, KEVIN KELLER is a comical comic book, but it's not comical because of Kevin's sexual orientation. And then there's the whole Ginger Lopez/Nancy Woods thing in AWA...

I guess different people find humor in different things. Maybe to someone it's comical by virtue of the fact everything else we know about Betty says she isn't L/G, or maybe it's just matter-of-fact, depending on how you look at it... because not everything in even a classic Archie story is funny by default.


I responded because I thought you were debunking the idea that the panel could have any LBGT references. The chances are, it wasn't intended to have any, though the author might have considered that such an interpretation was possible


Out of context, from the point of view of finding something interesting or humorous in them, all I take from the panels is the possibility that Betty is expressing a sexual interest in the other young woman

DeCarlo Rules

Re: Betty checks out a girl
« Reply #5 on: May 26, 2017, 09:22:24 AM »

Maybe I just wasn't clear on why implied LGBT is comical by default. I mean, KEVIN KELLER is a comical comic book, but it's not comical because of Kevin's sexual orientation. And then there's the whole Ginger Lopez/Nancy Woods thing in AWA...

I guess different people find humor in different things. Maybe to someone it's comical by virtue of the fact everything else we know about Betty says she isn't L/G, or maybe it's just matter-of-fact, depending on how you look at it... because not everything in even a classic Archie story is funny by default.

I responded because I thought you were debunking the idea that the panel could have any LBGT references. The chances are, it wasn't intended to have any, though the author might have considered that such an interpretation was possible


Out of context, from the point of view of finding something interesting or humorous in them, all I take from the panels is the possibility that Betty is expressing a sexual interest in the other young woman

But why would that (assuming it were true that Betty was sexually attracted to another female) be a source of humor, is what I'm wondering.

Clearly in the not-too-distant past, it WAS a source of humor, on occasion, but when that was the case, the writer made it fairly obvious and un-subtle. I'm thinking specifically of one Archie Christmas story where he has to play Santa Claus, but the suit he inherits is far too big for him, and it needs emergency tailoring alterations in order for it to fit him. Archie meets a "fruity"-type tailor who alters his Santa suit into an outrageously flamboyant creation, body-hugging but with a huge frilly, "poofy" skirt to the tails of Santa's jacket. I don't recall the actual name of the story, but anyone who's seen it will recognize what I'm talking about. When you look at that story now, those kind of attitudes about finding humor in someone's different sexual orientation seem really dated and obtuse (which is what makes the story still funny, but in a different way, today).

In the actual story the Betty panels are taken from, (unlike the intentional gay humor in the Xmas story I mention here) there's no overt attempt by the writer or artist at wringing humor out of those panels, so whatever someone sees in it is probably unintentional, and the writer and artist most likely were aware of exactly what I was talking about about females being matter-of-fact and unashamed to admit to admiring another female's beauty. Even if you choose to view it as possible evidence of Betty's bi-curious nature, it doesn't seem particularly funny.

Re: Betty checks out a girl
« Reply #6 on: May 30, 2017, 02:49:34 AM »
Even if you choose to view it as possible evidence of Betty's bi-curious nature, it doesn't seem particularly funny.

Not in the context of a story, but, out of context, it could be said to be funny, if you thought it was a reference that an Archie editor missed.

I wouldn't want to suggest that it raised more than a smile, but that seemed like the intention of the original post

 


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