Archie Comics Fan Forum

Everything Archie => All About Archie => Topic started by: SAGG on January 01, 2019, 02:30:01 am

Title: Chilling Adventures of Sabrina....
Post by: SAGG on January 01, 2019, 02:30:01 am
...Man, that is one dark, scary, and VERY good Netflix series! 😳
Title: Re: Chilling Adventures of Sabrina....
Post by: Vegan Jughead on January 01, 2019, 06:52:35 am
Quote from: SAGG on January 01, 2019, 02:30:01 am
...Man, that is one dark, scary, and VERY good Netflix series! 😳



I agree. I don't even like horror but I'm digging this series.  I stopped watching Riverdale this season.  Two seasons was enough for me. We'll see if Sabrina can keep up the momentum since it's been renewed for seasons 2, 3, and 4. 
Title: Re: Chilling Adventures of Sabrina....
Post by: SAGG on January 02, 2019, 02:03:15 am
Quote from: Vegan Jughead on January 01, 2019, 06:52:35 am
Quote from: SAGG on January 01, 2019, 02:30:01 am
...Man, that is one dark, scary, and VERY good Netflix series! 😳



I agree. I don't even like horror but I'm digging this series.  I stopped watching Riverdale this season.  Two seasons was enough for me. We'll see if Sabrina can keep up the momentum since it's been renewed for seasons 2, 3, and 4.
Really? 😳 I know season two is coming on April 5th, but I didn't hear about any other seasons. Where did you get the information?
Title: Re: Chilling Adventures of Sabrina....
Post by: Vegan Jughead on January 02, 2019, 09:12:20 am
Quote from: SAGG on January 02, 2019, 02:03:15 am
Quote from: Vegan Jughead on January 01, 2019, 06:52:35 am
Quote from: SAGG on January 01, 2019, 02:30:01 am
...Man, that is one dark, scary, and VERY good Netflix series! 😳



I agree. I don't even like horror but I'm digging this series.  I stopped watching Riverdale this season.  Two seasons was enough for me. We'll see if Sabrina can keep up the momentum since it's been renewed for seasons 2, 3, and 4.
Really? 😳 I know season two is coming on April 5th, but I didn't hear about any other seasons. Where did you get the information?



From Archie himself!  http://archiecomics.com/netflixs-chilling-adventures-of-sabrina-renewed/
Title: Re: Chilling Adventures of Sabrina....
Post by: SAGG on January 02, 2019, 11:26:59 pm
Quote from: Vegan Jughead on January 02, 2019, 09:12:20 am
Quote from: SAGG on January 02, 2019, 02:03:15 am
Quote from: Vegan Jughead on January 01, 2019, 06:52:35 am
Quote from: SAGG on January 01, 2019, 02:30:01 am
...Man, that is one dark, scary, and VERY good Netflix series! 😳



I agree. I don't even like horror but I'm digging this series.  I stopped watching Riverdale this season.  Two seasons was enough for me. We'll see if Sabrina can keep up the momentum since it's been renewed for seasons 2, 3, and 4.
Really? 😳 I know season two is coming on April 5th, but I didn't hear about any other seasons. Where did you get the information?



From Archie himself!  http://archiecomics.com/netflixs-chilling-adventures-of-sabrina-renewed/ (http://archiecomics.com/netflixs-chilling-adventures-of-sabrina-renewed/)
Okay, thanks....
Title: Re: Chilling Adventures of Sabrina....
Post by: DeCarlo Rules on January 07, 2019, 05:41:47 pm
Quote from: Vegan Jughead on January 01, 2019, 06:52:35 am
Quote from: SAGG on January 01, 2019, 02:30:01 am
...Man, that is one dark, scary, and VERY good Netflix series! 😳



I agree. I don't even like horror but I'm digging this series.  I stopped watching Riverdale this season.  Two seasons was enough for me. We'll see if Sabrina can keep up the momentum since it's been renewed for seasons 2, 3, and 4.


Wow, "Season" must mean something different than it used to mean. It used to mean somewhere around 26 weeks (which might be the number of episodes, but it could be less, down to even half that number), or about half a year, and the rest of the year the show would either repeat episodes from that same season, or go "on hiatus" for the rest of the year.

So the show's been renewed for the next three years? I never even heard of such a thing. It used to be they'd just play it by ear and watch the ratings from one year's batch of episodes (whatever number that might be) to the next year's.

Then again, this is Netflix, so it's not really "television" in the usual sense. It's more like a website with streaming content, but you have to sign up and be a member to get access to that content. So who knows what they mean by a "Season" now. Maybe they just mean Spring, Summer, Fall and Winter.
Title: Re: Chilling Adventures of Sabrina....
Post by: Tuxedo Mark on January 08, 2019, 09:21:00 am
Quote from: DeCarlo Rules on January 07, 2019, 05:41:47 pm
Wow, "Season" must mean something different than it used to mean. It used to mean somewhere around 26 weeks

Yeah, and thank Goddess those days are over. 26 episodes per year is way too much. Heck, seasons were even longer before that. "Bonanza" had 30+ episodes per season for most of its run. So did "Gunsmoke" for its first 11 seasons.
Even now, television seasons are too long. 22 episodes seem to be the standard now, but "Supergirl" got an extra episode last season. TV seems to be unable to adapt to changing times. Netflix, by contrast, recently cut their own seasons down from 13 episodes to 10 (see: "Alexa and Katie" season 2 versus season 1). That seems about right, especially considering the longer episode lengths that Netflix has.
By the way, the first season of ChAoS equals, in length, 26 episodes of the MJH series (or more than the entire first season of 24 episodes).
Quote from: DeCarlo Rules on January 07, 2019, 05:41:47 pm
So the show's been renewed for the next three years? I never even heard of such a thing. It used to be they'd just play it by ear and watch the ratings from one year's batch of episodes (whatever number that might be) to the next year's.

Well, the CW renewed "Beauty and the Beast" for seasons 3 and 4 at the same time.
Title: Re: Chilling Adventures of Sabrina....
Post by: DeCarlo Rules on January 09, 2019, 11:23:33 am
Quote from: Tuxedo Mark on January 08, 2019, 09:21:00 am
Even now, television seasons are too long. 22 episodes seem to be the standard now, but "Supergirl" got an extra episode last season. TV seems to be unable to adapt to changing times. Netflix, by contrast, recently cut their own seasons down from 13 episodes to 10 (see: "Alexa and Katie" season 2 versus season 1). That seems about right, especially considering the longer episode lengths that Netflix has.


You might be the odd man out on this opinion. I always assumed people wanted MORE episodes of series that they liked, not less. It may just be that you have a heavy schedule with too much TV viewing on your plate.

I can see Netflix not following the "rules" established by network television for any number of reasons, but my assumptions would be that they're producing fewer series and fewer episodes than regular broadcast networks strictly for budgetary reasons that parallel the relative sizes of the viewing audiences.

Title: Re: Chilling Adventures of Sabrina....
Post by: Tuxedo Mark on January 09, 2019, 04:40:23 pm
Quote from: DeCarlo Rules on January 09, 2019, 11:23:33 am
You might be the odd man out on this opinion. I always assumed people wanted MORE episodes of series that they liked, not less. It may just be that you have a heavy schedule with too much TV viewing on your plate.

That's not really the reason. Well, it's part of it. It's more like I have so little free time that I have a backlog of DVDs and Blu-rays to watch - and anything interesting that I find on Netflix on top of that. I have a job, and I live with my 78-year-old mom, who deals with constant pain (and constantly makes me aware of it) and is rather dumb when it comes to technology - and who also feels I have to take up the rather pointless tasks of doing yard work now that she she no longer can (the only times that I even go outside are to check the mail, so I really don't see the point, but that's unacceptable to her). Plus, she generally parks herself on the living room couch all day and either Skypes with relatives, plays sound-effect-laden computer games, or watches her endless supply of cop shows, leaving me only about a couple hours in the evening to get any kind of viewing in.

Also, I read an article a few months ago that said the trend for millennials and younger is to watch content usually not much longer than 20 minutes in length (often, this is content created by their peers and shared on YouTube), so a 22-episode (or more) season of 40-minute episodes is too much by comparison. (Heck, I myself take a few days to watch one movie.)

Also, I recently got into a discussion on the Supergirl TV Reddit, and the feeling is a 22-episode season is too much, and it's made even worse by constantly going on hiatus, which makes people forget plot details and even entire characters (I watch reaction videos, and the reactors are often confused for a while as to who certain people are supposed to be). I had suggested either a shorter season or multiple mini-story arcs per season (or even - gasp! - stand-alone episodes that have nothing to do with anything else), but the response that I got was this would come off as a foreign concept to the network.
Heck, the reason that Riverdale's ratings went up from season 1 to season 2 is due to new, younger viewers discovering the series on Netflix (it went up the week after the season finale, I believe) and binge-watching it.
Personally, it took me two years to "binge-watch" the entire Star Trek franchise and a few months to do "Charmed". Between my weekly blog, fanfics, watching YouTube videos, and trying to get some original novels done, I simply can't spare an entire day to watch an entire season of a series.
Title: Re: Chilling Adventures of Sabrina....
Post by: DeCarlo Rules on January 10, 2019, 04:32:27 am
Quote from: Tuxedo Mark on January 09, 2019, 04:40:23 pm
Quote from: DeCarlo Rules on January 09, 2019, 11:23:33 am
You might be the odd man out on this opinion. I always assumed people wanted MORE episodes of series that they liked, not less. It may just be that you have a heavy schedule with too much TV viewing on your plate.

That's not really the reason. Well, it's part of it. It's more like I have so little free time that I have a backlog of DVDs and Blu-rays to watch - and anything interesting that I find on Netflix on top of that. I have a job, and I live with my 78-year-old mom, who deals with constant pain (and constantly makes me aware of it) and is rather dumb when it comes to technology - and who also feels I have to take up the rather pointless tasks of doing yard work now that she she no longer can (the only times that I even go outside are to check the mail, so I really don't see the point, but that's unacceptable to her). Plus, she generally parks herself on the living room couch all day and either Skypes with relatives, plays sound-effect-laden computer games, or watches her endless supply of cop shows, leaving me only about a couple hours in the evening to get any kind of viewing in.

Also, I read an article a few months ago that said the trend for millennials and younger is to watch content usually not much longer than 20 minutes in length (often, this is content created by their peers and shared on YouTube), so a 22-episode (or more) season of 40-minute episodes is too much by comparison. (Heck, I myself take a few days to watch one movie.)

Also, I recently got into a discussion on the Supergirl TV Reddit, and the feeling is a 22-episode season is too much, and it's made even worse by constantly going on hiatus, which makes people forget plot details and even entire characters (I watch reaction videos, and the reactors are often confused for a while as to who certain people are supposed to be). I had suggested either a shorter season or multiple mini-story arcs per season (or even - gasp! - stand-alone episodes that have nothing to do with anything else), but the response that I got was this would come off as a foreign concept to the network.
Heck, the reason that Riverdale's ratings went up from season 1 to season 2 is due to new, younger viewers discovering the series on Netflix (it went up the week after the season finale, I believe) and binge-watching it.
Personally, it took me two years to "binge-watch" the entire Star Trek franchise and a few months to do "Charmed". Between my weekly blog, fanfics, watching YouTube videos, and trying to get some original novels done, I simply can't spare an entire day to watch an entire season of a series.


Yes, and I agree with the people who say "something 20-ish minutes or so on YouTube". Which is why I rarely get anywhere beyond YouTube - the occasional DVD or (VERY occasional) DVD box set, that's about it. YouTube will easily fill (and exceed) whatever void of time I chose to spend there. AND I have a huge backlog of comics (and other stuff) to READ at any given time (plus stuff I'd love to RE-read again, that I first read years ago, if I can find the time), so my time is increasingly dominated by reading as opposed to viewing. I think I used to put a lot more hours into television (or DVD) viewing, but now I put in much less. But I don't go by ME, and, judging from your circumstances, you're pretty atypical of an "average viewer" yourself, so I wouldn't go by you as a yardstick, either.
Title: Re: Chilling Adventures of Sabrina....
Post by: Tuxedo Mark on January 10, 2019, 08:59:18 am
Quote from: DeCarlo Rules on January 10, 2019, 04:32:27 am
I have a huge backlog of comics (and other stuff) to READ at any given time (plus stuff I'd love to RE-read again, that I first read years ago, if I can find the time), so my time is increasingly dominated by reading as opposed to viewing.

I haven't been much of a reader (of books) historically, but, last year, I decided to start reading ebooks, and I've been keeping track of my progress on Goodreads:
https://www.goodreads.com/user/show/13874241-mark
Usually, I read 2-3 books at a time but only a chapter of each per day.
As for comics, I gave away a ton of unread non-Archie comics to a thrift store yesterday. If I ever feel like reading comics, I just buy the Kindle version (and it's usually an Archie).
Title: Re: Chilling Adventures of Sabrina....
Post by: DeCarlo Rules on January 10, 2019, 09:44:07 am
Quote from: Tuxedo Mark on January 10, 2019, 08:59:18 am
Quote from: DeCarlo Rules on January 10, 2019, 04:32:27 am
I have a huge backlog of comics (and other stuff) to READ at any given time (plus stuff I'd love to RE-read again, that I first read years ago, if I can find the time), so my time is increasingly dominated by reading as opposed to viewing.

I haven't been much of a reader (of books) historically, but, last year, I decided to start reading ebooks, and I've been keeping track of my progress on Goodreads:
https://www.goodreads.com/user/show/13874241-mark
Usually, I read 2-3 books at a time but only a chapter of each per day.
As for comics, I gave away a ton of unread non-Archie comics to a thrift store yesterday. If I ever feel like reading comics, I just buy the Kindle version (and it's usually an Archie).


I don't know what it is about digital comics, but if there's a print comic and a digital comic of the same thing at the same price I'll go for the print comic every single time. They're just a lot more convenient to read (although they do take up a lot more space). That said, I'm always on the lookout for digital comics that can't be had (at least not easily or cheaply) in print. Loosely translated, what that mostly means for me is OLD comics; comics that are now public domain that someone scanned and uploaded to sites like Digital Comic Museum or ComicBookPlus, or fan-translated scans (scanslations) of Japanese manga which the regular American print publishers have chosen NOT to translate. Or webcomics that can be saved by right-clicking the images. AND of course, what all those things have in common is that they're FREE. I might feel differently about 'regular' digital comics if they were cheaper, like maybe $1 for a 20-page story. I mean, I can see why print comics cost $4 for a single floppy. They're printed on decent paper, but they don't print a hell of a lot of them, so I can see where the money's going. Most people only think about what the writers, artists, editors, production people and the publisher need to charge to make a living... but with print comics, a large part of that $4 cover price is keeping a printer, a distributor, and a retailer in business. What's digital's excuse? It literally costs NOTHING to make as many copies as they can sell. There are NO material costs beyond the cost of initial production, no paper, ink, shipping costs, etc. Maybe they'd sell more if they weren't so profit-greedy. Yet at the same time, if they make them TOO cheap, then they're stabbing the print end of their publishing operation right through the heart. I say digital comics won't really be practical until they don't compete directly with print comics, nor do I want to contribute to the death of print comics, so I guess it's print for me, as long as it still exists.
Title: Re: Chilling Adventures of Sabrina....
Post by: Tuxedo Mark on January 10, 2019, 10:15:22 pm
Quote from: DeCarlo Rules on January 10, 2019, 09:44:07 am
I don't know what it is about digital comics, but if there's a print comic and a digital comic of the same thing at the same price I'll go for the print comic every single time. They're just a lot more convenient to read (although they do take up a lot more space). That said, I'm always on the lookout for digital comics that can't be had (at least not easily or cheaply) in print. Loosely translated, what that mostly means for me is OLD comics; comics that are now public domain that someone scanned and uploaded to sites like Digital Comic Museum or ComicBookPlus, or fan-translated scans (scanslations) of Japanese manga which the regular American print publishers have chosen NOT to translate. Or webcomics that can be saved by right-clicking the images. AND of course, what all those things have in common is that they're FREE. I might feel differently about 'regular' digital comics if they were cheaper, like maybe $1 for a 20-page story. I mean, I can see why print comics cost $4 for a single floppy. They're printed on decent paper, but they don't print a hell of a lot of them, so I can see where the money's going. Most people only think about what the writers, artists, editors, production people and the publisher need to charge to make a living... but with print comics, a large part of that $4 cover price is keeping a printer, a distributor, and a retailer in business. What's digital's excuse? It literally costs NOTHING to make as many copies as they can sell. There are NO material costs beyond the cost of initial production, no paper, ink, shipping costs, etc. Maybe they'd sell more if they weren't so profit-greedy. Yet at the same time, if they make them TOO cheap, then they're stabbing the print end of their publishing operation right through the heart. I say digital comics won't really be practical until they don't compete directly with print comics, nor do I want to contribute to the death of print comics, so I guess it's print for me, as long as it still exists.

I was paying a lot in shipping for physical comics, because there are no physical comic shops near me and haven't been in years (the only one that comes up in a search is 18 miles away, in the next county). So I quit physical comics in December of 2016, switched to digital, and haven't looked back.
As for the price of digital comics, well, I think $3.99 is a bit too much, regardless of whether it's digital or physical. But does anyone know how much that Archie pays the writers, artists, and letterers per issue? The $3.99 price might make some sense in terms of a way to recoup costs.
For me, it's always more convenient to read something digitally, because I'm constantly parked in front of my computer until my mom goes to bed, so it's just a matter of opening it up in my Kindle for PC program.
Title: Re: Chilling Adventures of Sabrina....
Post by: SAGG on January 11, 2019, 05:02:44 am
Digital all the way, save for a collection of some Archies done by DeCarlo, Lucey, Schwartz via Amazon...
Title: Re: Chilling Adventures of Sabrina....
Post by: DeCarlo Rules on January 11, 2019, 05:39:00 am
Quote from: Tuxedo Mark on January 10, 2019, 10:15:22 pm
I was paying a lot in shipping for physical comics, because there are no physical comic shops near me and haven't been in years (the only one that comes up in a search is 18 miles away, in the next county). So I quit physical comics in December of 2016, switched to digital, and haven't looked back.
As for the price of digital comics, well, I think $3.99 is a bit too much, regardless of whether it's digital or physical. But does anyone know how much that Archie pays the writers, artists, and letterers per issue? The $3.99 price might make some sense in terms of a way to recoup costs.
For me, it's always more convenient to read something digitally, because I'm constantly parked in front of my computer until my mom goes to bed, so it's just a matter of opening it up in my Kindle for PC program.

Quote from: SAGG on January 11, 2019, 05:02:44 am
Digital all the way, save for a collection of some Archies done by DeCarlo, Lucey, Schwartz via Amazon...


Distribution is the absolute critical factor for a large number of people. For print comics, if you don't have a local comic shop, you don't have distribution -- except via the internet. But if that's the way you have to go, then why not just click on a button and download a comic rather than waiting (and paying) for delivery of the physical item? Plus you don't worry about whether any particular store is stocking the titles you like, or whether or not they'll be sold out before you get there. I worked out solutions to all those worries decades ago, so the distribution issue barely impacts me (except when a title is sold out at the distributor level). Having said that, if my LCS retailer was to go out of business right now, I'd probably go the internet route rather than finding another local store, and at least part of that would be digital... although it would probably result in my going almost totally to collected editions rather than single issues (I'm sure there would always be a few exceptions, though).

But I totally understand that people don't want to deal with the limitations in distribution of print comics, plus the storage and "collecting" aspects of that. They just want to READ the comics. For me, I spend all DAY in front of the computer at work, and a fair amount of time at home on the computer as well, so I'm looking for a way to get UN-ball-&-chained from the PC. Even a tablet is a little more hassle than I want. The screen's not big enough. I'm always afraid I'm going to drop the thing. Is it convenient to plug it in where I'm sitting, or do I have to check to see how much battery life I've got left? Ultimately the most convenient place to use the tablet is lying in bed. Maybe I just need a bigger screen tablet with a more robust battery, and some kind of sling or tether to keep me from accidentally dropping the thing. I wish digital comics were in the landscape page format, or desktop monitors would just swivel to display in portrait mode (yes, I realize you can buy such things, but they're expensive because almost nobody uses them).
Title: Re: Chilling Adventures of Sabrina....
Post by: Tuxedo Mark on January 11, 2019, 11:41:03 am
Quote from: DeCarlo Rules on January 11, 2019, 05:39:00 am
Plus you don't worry about whether any particular store is stocking the titles you like, or whether or not they'll be sold out before you get there.

This was actually a problem when I was ordering physical comics online from TFAW. If I waited a week or two after an issue came out in order to order multiple titles together and save on shipping, well, there was a chance that that title would no longer be available, so I was forced to order single issues weekly and pay for shipping each time. This resulted in numerous charges on my credit card bill, and I had to make a special trip to the bank once per month to pay it off. I eventually decided it wasn't worth it. In addition to physical comics, I also gave up using my credit card. Yeah, that means I have to buy an Amazon gift card every so often, but it's a lot more convenient, saving me money, a monthly trip to the bank, and a monthly bill in the mail.
As for ChAoS, I recently read an article where the person complained about the filler, due to the episodes approaching one hour in length. Yeah, s/he totally has a point. Even with only ten episodes in a season, it sometimes feels like the series is spinning its wheels. I'm not sure what the solution is. Maybe ten 30-minute episodes?
Title: Re: Chilling Adventures of Sabrina....
Post by: DeCarlo Rules on January 11, 2019, 02:27:39 pm
Quote from: Tuxedo Mark on January 11, 2019, 11:41:03 am
Quote from: DeCarlo Rules on January 11, 2019, 05:39:00 am
Plus you don't worry about whether any particular store is stocking the titles you like, or whether or not they'll be sold out before you get there.

This was actually a problem when I was ordering physical comics online from TFAW. If I waited a week or two after an issue came out in order to order multiple titles together and save on shipping, well, there was a chance that that title would no longer be available, so I was forced to order single issues weekly and pay for shipping each time.


The system of print comic book distribution has evolved to a pattern of pre-orders setting *VERY* tight margins on the number of copies of any particular item that the distributor carries. There are so many hundreds of items listed each and every month in the Diamond Previews catalog, that any significant percentage of overstocking on items that don't have "shelf life" results in Diamond Comics' warehouses clogging up with unsold (and in most cases, nearly unSELLable) items. I even have direct access to my LCS' Diamond ordering system, and I can tell you that in any given week there are any number of items which will ship SOLD OUT -- that means they can't even be re-ordered on the day that they're supposed to go on sale -- if you didn't get your advance order in before the cutoff date, you're out of luck. Diamond is ordering in quantities from the publishers extremely close to the actual initial order numbers submitted by retailers. Diamond wants most of their deliveries from printers to go out the door of their warehouses the same week. A few really BIG online retailers might have special deals with individual publishers (like  TFAW is owned by Mike Richardson, publisher of Dark Horse Comics), but most of their product is still coming from Diamond, so if you don't pre-order before the cutoff date for the retailer to submit his orders to Diamond, there are no guarantees you'll actually get the product.

All of this makes me think that the monthly floppy print comic book has really outlived its original purpose. In order for the comics medium to reach and expand its audience, the comics industry needs to revert to the newspaper model. Instead of comics being sold ala carte, they should be initially digital-only, and free (to view, but not to download or save) or bundled into a single low monthly subscription fee. They shouldn't even become print comics until there is a proven audience demand for the product, and then only in more substantial collected editions. That's counter-intuitive to the way just about everyone in the industry thinks though, most especially the retailers. The weekly Wednesday Warriors who buy between 10 and 40 or so floppy single comics every single week with clockwork regularity are what most retailers have courted for the last 40 years in the direct market, and that's what they use as a yardstick to gauge their weekly income (as well as planning their monthly orders). Unfortunately the collector mentality has ruined the economic viability of comics as a medium for everyone else.
EhPortal 1.24 © 2018, WebDev