Archie Comics Fan Forum

Everything Archie => All About Archie => Topic started by: DeCarlo Rules on November 13, 2016, 12:47:16 PM

Title: Some questions about Adam Hughes' BETTY & VERONICA
Post by: DeCarlo Rules on November 13, 2016, 12:47:16 PM
Before I ask the questions, let me preface this by stating that some (if not most) of these questions may seem strange to some of you. So let me set this up by explaining why I think I need to ask them. I've read the first 2 issues of the New Riverdale BETTY & VERONICA (once only) but I don't own them so I don't have them to refer to. I've also read every issue of the New Riverdale JUGHEAD, but apart from #9 & 10, I don't own any of the first 8 issues. I've read the first two issues of ARCHIE, but don't own those either, and haven't even read issues #3-12 (or whatever number they're up to now).

I don't recall reading anything in those JUGHEAD issues that would seem relevant to background knowledge that a reader of BETTY & VERONICA would be expected to have prior to reading the story, but I'm not sure if that's true of the New Riverdale ARCHIE title. Ideally, a reader of B&V would not require any background knowledge prior to reading the story, but I realize comic books are now written in such a way that sometimes the reader of a new title is presumed to have also read previous titles published by the same company, and supposedly taking place within the same universe.

Now, it also occurs to me that since the New Riverdale comics are all part of a REBOOTED Archie universe, no information applicable to the publisher's previous incarnations of the characters should be presumed, either. Therefore any background information that the reader of BETTY & VERONICA can be presumed to bring with them before reading the story should go back no further in the publishing history than ARCHIE (2015) #1. I mean, isn't that the point, to get new readers to read the New Riverdale comics, and not assume that the readers had also read Archie Comics published prior to  ARCHIE #1? Clearly there are many specific aspects of the Archie characters in the New Riverdale comics that differ from their Classic incarnations, so they shouldn't be asking any readers to fill in any missing background information about the characters appearing in New Riverdale based on the pre-rebooted characters' incarnations.

So these questions I have are by way of determining whether background information necessary to the story in B&V #1-2 is simply not given in the story, or whether that information was stated or depicted in the stories in ARCHIE, and the publisher (and writer) has simply presumed that all of the readers of BETTY & VERONICA would have read those comics already. Also by way of determining whether the reason it doesn't seem like a real story to me (because there's too much background information missing for me to make much sense of it) is because in order to really understand what's going on in this story, I would need to understand things that happened in ARCHIE.



1. Are Betty and Veronica best friends? Are they friends at all? (Because it sure doesn't seem like it.) I know Veronica only moved to Riverdale recently in the new ARCHIE series, so where & how did they become friends (if indeed they are, sure doesn't seem like it)? If they're not friends, then how does a BETTY VS. VERONICA story even matter?




2. Is Mr. Lodge an evil greedy 1%er who doesn't care about anybody but himself/money/his family (maybe?)




3. Betty tried to explain why she's trying to save Pop's in the first issue, but what does Veronica get out of making sure Pop Tate is driven out of business? Another successful gourmet coffee franchise in Riverdale doesn't make a difference in her lifestyle one way or another, because she's too rich already for a few more $$$ in profit to change anything for her, right? She doesn't have to do a thing to help Pop Tate, but she doesn't have to go out of her way to annihilate him either, unless she's just doing it to crush Betty's hopes. And why do you think she'd want to do that, if that's what she's doing? She could just stand back, do absolutely nothing, and let the chips fall where they may.





4. Who do you think we're supposed to be rooting for in this story? And why does it matter? Places go out of business all the time, get bought up or change ownership, etc. You see it all the time, if you even notice it. Why would it be a good thing if Betty/Pop's wins, or why would it be a good thing if Veronica/coffee wins? The reason I ask is that if it doesn't matter to the reader which one wins, Betty/Pop's or Veronica/Lodge coffee franchise, then what do you think the story IS about?





5. This one's tough, and you won't find the answers in any of those other comic books, so you'll just have to put on your thinking cap. There's no right answer or wrong answer.
IF it does matter somehow, then WHY does it matter? What does Pop's symbolize or stand for? What does Lodgebucks Coffee (or whateverthehell the franchise is called) represent, and how do the values, ideas/ideals or philosophies that those two different companies embody have anything to say about anything? Are Pop Tate's and Lodgebucks Coffee metaphors for something else?




************************************************************************************************************************
I have some ideas of my own about Question #5, but I'm wondering if anybody thinks about these stories or what they're about, or just reads them in 10-15 minutes and puts them away in a bag and/or box and forgets about them.
Title: Re: Some questions about Adam Hughes' BETTY & VERONICA
Post by: BettyReggie on November 13, 2016, 03:40:22 PM
Those are some good thoughts about B & V #1 & 2. It was strange that when Veronica called her father to complain that she was almost ran over by a truck & she wanted her father put his money where his mouth is & can buy the company so he take control. When Veronica hung up the phone, her face looked like he told her he already owned them. Wouldn't she know that? And I wonder if Veronica & her father run Pop out of  business, will Veronica have any friends at all in the end? Jughead hates Veronica, Midge & Moose are not too friendly with her either. Even Dilton & Ethel were never friends with her either. I think this back fire in Veronica's face & she will have no friends. Pop will out of luck & money, what will happen to him. He's old, what's he going do?
Title: Re: Some questions about Adam Hughes' BETTY & VERONICA
Post by: SAGG on November 13, 2016, 04:15:48 PM
I think (think, now) that the writers are trying to strengthen the flimsy friendship of Betty and Ronica by having them go through this. Perhaps, though, they should have chosen a stronger subject. As for Pop's Shoppe fate? Please. It's Pop's.  :D  It's an institution in Riverdale. I predict it's not going anywhere. Hm. I think I may just have figured out what's going to happen: How about a combination of the two ideas? Pop's Coffee Shop? It would appease both girls, and strengthen their friendship...  :)
Title: Re: Some questions about Adam Hughes' BETTY & VERONICA
Post by: irishmoxie on November 14, 2016, 01:59:20 AM
I think it was a mistake to have Adam Hughes as writer. I wish they had chosen a female writer and made the comic girlie. The colors are a bit muted but I think that's because he's so obsessed with fall in the issue and the colors were chosen to match that theme. I love dogs but I'm not getting the humor having Hot Dog narrate. It's just creepy.


I've read each issue once. I put it away in its plastic coffin and don't think about it too much. I think B&V are better friends in the B&V and Jughead series as opposed to the Archie series were they seem like sworn enemies. Mr. Lodge comes across as more evil in the Archie series.


Metaphors: Pop's represents Classic Archie and StarLodge the new Riverdale.


As for Veronica campaigning for the big chain...rich people do things because they can. She wants to show her power.


My favorite ACP series right now: Josie (except the 1st issue was way better than the 2nd) and surprisingly Jughead. I hope they keep Sabrina in the series or better yet give her her own series. I also liked Cheryl in the Archie series.
Title: Re: Some questions about Adam Hughes' BETTY & VERONICA
Post by: DeCarlo Rules on November 14, 2016, 02:34:17 AM
Quote from: irishmoxie on November 14, 2016, 01:59:20 AM
Metaphors: Pop's represents Classic Archie and StarLodge the new Riverdale.

I didn't want to plant any suggestions in anyone's mind, but Betty's little speech in issue #1 about why saving Pop's mattered to her made me think the same thing.

HOWEVER, if this is indeed a metaphor and the comic is alluding to some meta statement, the message is very confusing.

If Pop's symbolizes tradition, the sort of fundamental things we hope will never change and always be with us, a comforting place that's always there for us to return to, and remains steadfast from generation to generation... and StarLodge Coffee symbolizes the New Thing, the thing of the moment, moving with changing times, what's currently popular with the mainstream of culture, and the franchising of a brand for the primary purpose of increasing profits, then what message is being sent in the story, if Betty & Pop's seems to be cast in the role of "the good guys" and Veronica and StarLodge Coffee seems to be cast in the role of "the bad guys"? Doesn't that make it seem like the comic is casting the New Riverdale reboot in the role of the villain here, versus "Good Ol' Classic Archie"? If it is a meta statement, then the statement seems to be "I am the bad thing that you should resist with all your might." Or are they foreshadowing an unexpected outcome, where Veronica is triumphant, StarLodge Coffee winds up sweeping Pop's into the dustbin of history, and the message is "Everything changes. You can't fight progress."

Title: Re: Some questions about Adam Hughes' BETTY & VERONICA
Post by: DeCarlo Rules on November 14, 2016, 02:46:08 AM
Quote from: BettyReggie on November 13, 2016, 03:40:22 PM
Those are some good thoughts about B & V #1 & 2. It was strange that when Veronica called her father to complain that she was almost ran over by a truck & she wanted her father put his money where his mouth is & can buy the company so he take control. When Veronica hung up the phone, her face looked like he told her he already owned them. Wouldn't she know that? And I wonder if Veronica & her father run Pop out of  business, will Veronica have any friends at all in the end? Jughead hates Veronica, Midge & Moose are not too friendly with her either. Even Dilton & Ethel were never friends with her either. I think this back fire in Veronica's face & she will have no friends. Pop will out of luck & money, what will happen to him. He's old, what's he going do?

Yes, the only thing that Veronica's campaign seems to be doing is making enemies for her. If she wins, her father becomes a LITTLE bit richer, but how does that improve Veronica's life by much, if she has no friend left?

You bring up an interesting point about it never being positively established that Mr. Lodge did indeed take control of the coffee franchise, and maybe you have guessed the key to the story's ending here.
Title: Re: Some questions about Adam Hughes' BETTY & VERONICA
Post by: DeCarlo Rules on November 14, 2016, 03:36:38 AM
Quote from: SAGG on November 13, 2016, 04:15:48 PM
I think (think, now) that the writers are trying to strengthen the flimsy friendship of Betty and Ronica by having them go through this. Perhaps, though, they should have chosen a stronger subject. As for Pop's Shoppe fate? Please. It's Pop's.  :D  It's an institution in Riverdale. I predict it's not going anywhere. Hm. I think I may just have figured out what's going to happen: How about a combination of the two ideas? Pop's Coffee Shop? It would appease both girls, and strengthen their friendship...  :)

Applying the theory that Pop's is a metaphor for Classic Archie, and StarLodge is a metaphor for New Riverdale, a more accurately representational compromise outcome would be for Pop's to be preserved as sort of a museum, with varnished plates of food from the menu and unchanging wax figures of its former patrons preserved as relics of a fondly-remembered, but now bygone past, open to the public so long as misty nostalgia still generates a small profit stream, but irrelevant to the modern world. That would serve as a metaphor for the reprint digests, sequestered off in a corner and maintained but no longer part of the mainstream culture.
Title: Re: Some questions about Adam Hughes' BETTY & VERONICA
Post by: DeCarlo Rules on November 14, 2016, 03:58:29 AM
Quote from: irishmoxie on November 14, 2016, 01:59:20 AM
I think it was a mistake to have Adam Hughes as writer. I wish they had chosen a female writer and made the comic girlie.
[ . . . ]
My favorite ACP series right now: Josie (except the 1st issue was way better than the 2nd) and surprisingly Jughead. I hope they keep Sabrina in the series or better yet give her her own series. I also liked Cheryl in the Archie series.

It probably won't surprise you that I don't like the idea of ACP becoming a "No Boys Allowed" niche-marketing comic book publisher servicing only the female demographic of comic readers. Obviously from my own perspective as a male comic book reader, but while it's true that this has been an increasing trend at the Big Two publishers, Marvel and DC, in the last few years, it makes financial sense for those companies only with respect to the fact that they both publish a dozen or two titles every week. Therefore if they convert a half-dozen of their comics to "girlie titles", it's merely redressing a balance considering that the vast majority of their comics are aimed at or appeal mainly to males. And relatively speaking, it's a burgeoning demographic, with an influx of female readers having recently come into the marketplace due to the influence of movie adaptations, video games, cosplaying, and the increased visibility of comic conventions. ACP only publishes a scant few comics, however, so even if they were to exploit the female comic-reading demographic to its fullest, they are limiting the appeal of the characters, which (in Classic Archie comics) was traditionally always universal between the sexes.

Or are you saying it may be okay for books like ARCHIE and JUGHEAD to be written to appeal to a male audience, but if it's a female lead character tile like B&V, JOSIE, or SABRINA, then those titles should be written exclusively by females, and for females? I have nothing against female writers as long as I consider them good writers, and they are putting something in their stories for everybody.

So let me ask you how classic Archie Comics female writers like Kathleen Webb, Barbara Slate, Holly Golightly, and Tania del Rio rank on your personal "girlieness" scale. Of the four I mentioned, I haven't read an extensive number of stories by Barbara Slate or Tania del Rio, but in my view Kathleen Webb and Holly G's stories seem pretty girlie to me (but I guess I could be wrong about that), yet still maintain a universality of appeal. I have to say I don't consider Marguerite Bennet to be a very good writer. Her internal story logic seems weak, and the scripts are overladen with burdensome, tangential dialogue that seems almost stream-of-consciousness at some points. The dialogue doesn't ring true to me as something you'd actually hear in people's conversations with each other.
Title: Re: Some questions about Adam Hughes' BETTY & VERONICA
Post by: steveinthecity on November 19, 2016, 04:42:57 AM
I really thought this would be an interesting(and active) thread topic, particularly to the "classic" readers that are now checking out the reboot, or the reboot readers exclusively (that apparently don't check out this forum  ???  ).


I finally read B&V #2 a few days ago, and I'll re-read #1&2 again with a more discerning eye.  Adam Hughes art doesn't seem a big plus here btw.
Title: Re: Some questions about Adam Hughes' BETTY & VERONICA
Post by: DeCarlo Rules on November 19, 2016, 12:13:52 PM
Quote from: steveinthecity on November 19, 2016, 04:42:57 AM
Adam Hughes art doesn't seem a big plus here btw.

I'm not sure in what sense you mean that, but after the long wait since the B&V reboot was first hyped, Hughes can't bedazzle the way he did years ago. It's still good art relative to the median of the industry in the broader sense, but it's not ranking high relative to Hughes' own oeuvre. The coloring here certainly doesn't help much.

Furthermore, the announcement of his being contracted by ACP led towards speculation that this might be a somewhat more controversial choice on ACP's part, and that it might in essence be a swinging of the pendulum back towards the sexier sort of Dan DeCarlo girl-humor art not seen in a couple of decades or more. Looked at from that perspective, Hughes' work on B&V has got to seem like a dud, like it's far too self-restrained (or editorially restrained). I don't think Hughes is really the sort of artist for the quieter, slowly-paced story, unless he can throw in some glamour shots every few pages.  It seems that ACP spent a lot of money for his name value, but isn't willing to risk potentially alienating some of its female readers by exploiting the 'good girl art' talents that Hughes is most renowned for. I mean... there's a small scene in #2 where Veronica stages a Bikini Car Wash, and you'd barely even know it's in there. If someone had just told you (assuming you're familiar with his prior work) that scene was in an Adam Hughes BETTY & VERONICA comic book, you'd imagine it would be a big deal... but nothing of the kind.

Lastly, there's the Achilles' heel of  the journeyman-writer/accomplished-artist... the tendency of the artist (as a primarily visual thinker) to focus so much on thinking about the visuals of WHAT he'd like to draw in the story (like, for instance... a big shaggy dog), that in effect the plot meanders around being led by the nose from one scene that he really wanted to draw to the next one.

And now that you mention it, when things get quiet enough around here that I'm forced to talk about the reboot hoping to stir up some interest,  but still get precious few takers, maybe this forum is stumbling towards the graveyard.

I can talk about Donald Trump or bath soap (the two threads recently attracting the most members) with the people at work... assuming that I wanted to (not much).
Title: Re: Some questions about Adam Hughes' BETTY & VERONICA
Post by: steveinthecity on November 19, 2016, 07:28:49 PM
Quote from: DeCarlo Rules on November 19, 2016, 12:13:52 PM
Quote from: steveinthecity on November 19, 2016, 04:42:57 AM
Adam Hughes art doesn't seem a big plus here btw.

I'm not sure in what sense you mean that, but after the long wait since the B&V reboot was first hyped, Hughes can't bedazzle the way he did years ago. It's still good art relative to the median of the industry in the broader sense, but it's not ranking high relative to Hughes' own oeuvre. The coloring here certainly doesn't help much.
What you stated was pretty much what I meant.  :) I don't collect posters, so as I offered in SAGG's now defunct thread of whether Art or Story is more important to a comic, I'm leaning towards story in this instance.  I like that Hughes makes Ethel somewhat homely and that Hot Dog smokes, but beyond that, the art does nothing  for me.  Not a plus by my measure. Being "median" doesn't resonate with me here.


Title: Re: Some questions about Adam Hughes' BETTY & VERONICA
Post by: irishmoxie on November 19, 2016, 07:38:38 PM
I'd much rather talk about Betty and Veronica than Donald Trump. I come here to get away from all that stuff.


It would be fine with me if Adam Hughes went more sexy with B&V. I just want the writing to improve. Make it more zippy and funny like Cameron is doing on the Josie title.
Title: Re: Some questions about Adam Hughes' BETTY & VERONICA
Post by: steveinthecity on November 19, 2016, 07:50:11 PM
Quote from: irishmoxie on November 19, 2016, 07:38:38 PM
I'd much rather talk about Betty and Veronica than Donald Trump. I come here to get away from all that stuff.


It would be fine with me if Adam Hughes went more sexy with B&V. I just want the writing to improve. Make it more zippy and funny like Cameron is doing on the Josie title.
I realize my political diatribe was pretty over the top.  I'll back off from that stuff going forward.
Title: Re: Some questions about Adam Hughes' BETTY & VERONICA
Post by: DeCarlo Rules on November 19, 2016, 08:22:27 PM
Quote from: steveinthecity on November 19, 2016, 07:28:49 PM
Quote from: DeCarlo Rules on November 19, 2016, 12:13:52 PM
Quote from: steveinthecity on November 19, 2016, 04:42:57 AM
Adam Hughes art doesn't seem a big plus here btw.

I'm not sure in what sense you mean that, but after the long wait since the B&V reboot was first hyped, Hughes can't bedazzle the way he did years ago. It's still good art relative to the median of the industry in the broader sense, but it's not ranking high relative to Hughes' own oeuvre. The coloring here certainly doesn't help much.
What you stated was pretty much what I meant.  :) I don't collect posters, so as I offered in SAGG's now defunct thread of whether Art or Story is more important to a comic, I'm leaning towards story in this instance.  I like that Hughes makes Ethel somewhat homely and that Hot Dog smokes, but beyond that, the art does nothing  for me.  Not a plus by my measure. Being "median" doesn't resonate with me here.

I don't think it's median. I said it's good relative to the median for the industry. I think the artwork in ARCHIE is median or below median; none of the artists who've drawn that book have impressed me in the slightest. The artwork in B&V is above that, but it's not good art compared to Adam Hughes' other work. It's only "not good" relative to my high level of expectations for a B&V comic book drawn by Adam Hughes.

When you consider what he could be getting paid for his art by other publishers, he's got to be the biggest financial drain on ACP's resources of any of the artists working on the New Riverdale titles so far, who are all relative newcomers to the industry compared to Hughes, and IMO the costs to the company aren't worth the results. I think the relative sales on the B&V title bear that out as well.
Title: Re: Some questions about Adam Hughes' BETTY & VERONICA
Post by: steveinthecity on November 19, 2016, 09:23:39 PM
Quote from: DeCarlo Rules on November 19, 2016, 08:22:27 PM
Quote from: steveinthecity on November 19, 2016, 07:28:49 PM
Quote from: DeCarlo Rules on November 19, 2016, 12:13:52 PM
Quote from: steveinthecity on November 19, 2016, 04:42:57 AM
Adam Hughes art doesn't seem a big plus here btw.

I'm not sure in what sense you mean that, but after the long wait since the B&V reboot was first hyped, Hughes can't bedazzle the way he did years ago. It's still good art relative to the median of the industry in the broader sense, but it's not ranking high relative to Hughes' own oeuvre. The coloring here certainly doesn't help much.
What you stated was pretty much what I meant.  :) I don't collect posters, so as I offered in SAGG's now defunct thread of whether Art or Story is more important to a comic, I'm leaning towards story in this instance.  I like that Hughes makes Ethel somewhat homely and that Hot Dog smokes, but beyond that, the art does nothing  for me.  Not a plus by my measure. Being "median" doesn't resonate with me here.

I don't think it's median. I said it's good relative to the median for the industry. I think the artwork in ARCHIE is median or below median; none of the artists who've drawn that book have impressed me in the slightest. The artwork in B&V is above that, but it's not good art compared to Adam Hughes' other work. It's only "not good" relative to my high level of expectations for a B&V comic book drawn by Adam Hughes.

When you consider what he could be getting paid for his art by other publishers, he's got to be the biggest financial drain on ACP's resources of any of the artists working on the New Riverdale titles so far, who are all relative newcomers to the industry compared to Hughes, and IMO the costs to the company aren't worth the results. I think the relative sales on the B&V title bear that out as well.
I understood what you were saying.  I was probably to opaque in my reply, but regardless of such a small pool of artists being considered, I just don't care where Hughes ranks.  I don't care about the art, but the story.  The story is the tipping point for me. I don't understand the story as a long time reader, and equally I don't understand why a New reader would be interested in this. Too many questions as your original post puts forth, which is why I want to re-read both issues back to back.



Title: Re: Some questions about Adam Hughes' BETTY & VERONICA
Post by: DeCarlo Rules on November 19, 2016, 10:06:27 PM
Quote from: steveinthecity on November 19, 2016, 09:23:39 PM
I don't understand the story as a long time reader, and equally I don't understand why a New reader would be interested in this. Too many questions as your original post puts forth, which is why I want to re-read both issues back to back.

That's why I had to ask all those questions. The book SHOULD be immediately accessible to both newcomer and veteran ACP fans alike, but so many vagaries in the information supplied on the pages of the comic led me to wonder whether the book had been written from the standpoint of assuming that any reader would have already been familiar with anything previously established in the New Riverdale ARCHIE title. That would still have been a failing, but apparently that's not the case either, which makes B&V an even bigger Fail from a storytelling perspective. Before the title even came out, I joked about Hughes filling 20 pages or so with cheesecake pin-up panels of B&V, but in hindsight that would have represented a major improvement here in the art helping to compensate for a vapid story.
Title: Re: Some questions about Adam Hughes' BETTY & VERONICA
Post by: Deb on November 20, 2016, 05:59:08 PM
Warning: Rant Ahead:
I have reached the jumping off point for the New Riverdale titles.  Betty and Veronica is a mess.  So much space in Issue #1 wasted on captions.  Our first view of Betty and Veronica on page 1 with them fighting is just awful as well.  Why on earth did Hot Dog narrate the story?  Why replace two pages of the story with more caption balloons and a pic of Betty and Veronica in bikinis for no reason? 
Off-topic, but Archie's storyline is just dragging on and becoming more and more unpleasant, between Cheryl Blossom's introduction and Archie's eating himself into the hospital.  Then we get a preview for the previous issue of Jughead instead of a classic reprint.  Jughead has been fun, but I get the sneaky fekeling that it isn't selling very well.  While fun, I just can't bring myself to start reading the Josie reboot.  I just get the feeling it'll end suddenly, like Life With Archie did, or be dropped to be replaced with a Riverdale comic (which is coming).  The 75th Anniversary Digests are a big rip-off, just reusing stories from the 75th Anniversary book and Best of Books (which may or may not eventually become Deluxe hardcovers anyways, so maybe I'll just wait). If the Super Specials keep up, I'll happily read them and Dark Horse's Archie Archives paperbacks, but honestly, it's hard not to be frustrated with Archie Comics right now.
End of Rant.
Title: Re: Some questions about Adam Hughes' BETTY & VERONICA
Post by: steveinthecity on November 20, 2016, 08:17:39 PM
Quote from: Deb on November 20, 2016, 05:59:08 PM
Warning: Rant Ahead:
I have reached the jumping off point for the New Riverdale titles.  Betty and Veronica is a mess.  So much space in Issue #1 wasted on captions.  Our first view of Betty and Veronica on page 1 with them fighting is just awful as well.  Why on earth did Hot Dog narrate the story?  Why replace two pages of the story with more caption balloons and a pic of Betty and Veronica in bikinis for no reason? 
Off-topic, but Archie's storyline is just dragging on and becoming more and more unpleasant, between Cheryl Blossom's introduction and Archie's eating himself into the hospital.  Then we get a preview for the previous issue of Jughead instead of a classic reprint.  Jughead has been fun, but I get the sneaky fekeling that it isn't selling very well.  While fun, I just can't bring myself to start reading the Josie reboot.  I just get the feeling it'll end suddenly, like Life With Archie did, or be dropped to be replaced with a Riverdale comic (which is coming).  The 75th Anniversary Digests are a big rip-off, just reusing stories from the 75th Anniversary book and Best of Books (which may or may not eventually become Deluxe hardcovers anyways, so maybe I'll just wait). If the Super Specials keep up, I'll happily read them and Dark Horse's Archie Archives paperbacks, but honestly, it's hard not to be frustrated with Archie Comics right now.
End of Rant.
You're my pick for  "favorite poster" of the month.  :smitten:
Quote from: DeCarloRules...snip...
I like when we argue over stuff we've formed a similar opinion on. ;)


DCR's successfully using "vagaries" in a reply and being the incumbent will certainly make this a tough challenge for Deb, though.


Title: Re: Some questions about Adam Hughes' BETTY & VERONICA
Post by: DeCarlo Rules on November 21, 2016, 05:31:38 AM
Quote from: steveinthecity on November 20, 2016, 08:17:39 PM
Quote from: Deb on November 20, 2016, 05:59:08 PM
Warning: Rant Ahead:
I have reached the jumping off point for the New Riverdale titles.  Betty and Veronica is a mess.  So much space in Issue #1 wasted on captions.  Our first view of Betty and Veronica on page 1 with them fighting is just awful as well.  Why on earth did Hot Dog narrate the story?  Why replace two pages of the story with more caption balloons and a pic of Betty and Veronica in bikinis for no reason? 
Off-topic, but Archie's storyline is just dragging on and becoming more and more unpleasant, between Cheryl Blossom's introduction and Archie's eating himself into the hospital.  Then we get a preview for the previous issue of Jughead instead of a classic reprint.  Jughead has been fun, but I get the sneaky fekeling that it isn't selling very well.  While fun, I just can't bring myself to start reading the Josie reboot.  I just get the feeling it'll end suddenly, like Life With Archie did, or be dropped to be replaced with a Riverdale comic (which is coming).  The 75th Anniversary Digests are a big rip-off, just reusing stories from the 75th Anniversary book and Best of Books (which may or may not eventually become Deluxe hardcovers anyways, so maybe I'll just wait). If the Super Specials keep up, I'll happily read them and Dark Horse's Archie Archives paperbacks, but honestly, it's hard not to be frustrated with Archie Comics right now.
End of Rant.
You're my pick for  "favorite poster" of the month.  :smitten:
Quote from: DeCarloRules...snip...
I like when we argue over stuff we've formed a similar opinion on. ;)


DCR's successfully using "vagaries" in a reply and being the incumbent will certainly make this a tough challenge for Deb, though.

Oh, is THAT what we were doing, arguing? Well, I guess I've botched it, then. I was under the impression we were just discussing. Or commenting. Something like that, anyway.

I'd just like to add that I'm in complete agreement with every rant that Deb just ranted (well, almost... but since I haven't been reading ARCHIE, I'm willing to trust her on that one), especially as she summarized nicely how it makes me feel, in her final sentence, that I was emboldened to.. well, embolden. Personally, I generally don't bother to label my rants as such, but just assume that people would know that if they've read many of my prior posts.
Title: Re: Some questions about Adam Hughes' BETTY & VERONICA
Post by: steveinthecity on November 21, 2016, 07:32:48 AM
Quote from: DeCarlo Rules on November 21, 2016, 05:31:38 AM


Oh, is THAT what we were doing, arguing? Well, I guess I've botched it, then. I was under the impression we were just discussing. Or commenting. Something like that, anyway.

I'd just like to add that I'm in complete agreement with every rant that Deb just ranted (well, almost... but since I haven't been reading ARCHIE, I'm willing to trust her on that one), especially as she summarized nicely how it makes me feel, in her final sentence, that I was emboldened to.. well, embolden. Personally, I generally don't bother to label my rants as such, but just assume that people would know that if they've read many of my prior posts.
OK.  "Arguing" might be the wrong word, but my intent stands. I've learned over time I'm not the best at chat board communication, but I'm sure the immediacy coupled with my dry, wry delivery would win you over in real life.  [M]Messageboardcrushgremlin[/M]

I'll make time to read these two comics again Monday or Tuesday with a particularly discerning eye.



Irishmoxie would still be steadfast in her opposition of my seemingly neverending political rants, irl btw.
Title: Re: Some questions about Adam Hughes' BETTY & VERONICA
Post by: irishmoxie on November 21, 2016, 09:29:15 PM
Quote from: DeCarlo Rules on November 19, 2016, 08:22:27 PM
Quote from: steveinthecity on November 19, 2016, 07:28:49 PM
Quote from: DeCarlo Rules on November 19, 2016, 12:13:52 PM
Quote from: steveinthecity on November 19, 2016, 04:42:57 AM
Adam Hughes art doesn't seem a big plus here btw.

I'm not sure in what sense you mean that, but after the long wait since the B&V reboot was first hyped, Hughes can't bedazzle the way he did years ago. It's still good art relative to the median of the industry in the broader sense, but it's not ranking high relative to Hughes' own oeuvre. The coloring here certainly doesn't help much.
What you stated was pretty much what I meant.  :) I don't collect posters, so as I offered in SAGG's now defunct thread of whether Art or Story is more important to a comic, I'm leaning towards story in this instance.  I like that Hughes makes Ethel somewhat homely and that Hot Dog smokes, but beyond that, the art does nothing  for me.  Not a plus by my measure. Being "median" doesn't resonate with me here.

I don't think it's median. I said it's good relative to the median for the industry. I think the artwork in ARCHIE is median or below median; none of the artists who've drawn that book have impressed me in the slightest. The artwork in B&V is above that, but it's not good art compared to Adam Hughes' other work. It's only "not good" relative to my high level of expectations for a B&V comic book drawn by Adam Hughes.

When you consider what he could be getting paid for his art by other publishers, he's got to be the biggest financial drain on ACP's resources of any of the artists working on the New Riverdale titles so far, who are all relative newcomers to the industry compared to Hughes, and IMO the costs to the company aren't worth the results. I think the relative sales on the B&V title bear that out as well.


B&V isn't selling well?
Title: Re: Some questions about Adam Hughes' BETTY & VERONICA
Post by: DeCarlo Rules on November 21, 2016, 10:43:46 PM
Quote from: irishmoxie on November 21, 2016, 09:29:15 PM
Quote from: DeCarlo Rules on November 19, 2016, 08:22:27 PM
When you consider what he could be getting paid for his art by other publishers, he's got to be the biggest financial drain on ACP's resources of any of the artists working on the New Riverdale titles so far, who are all relative newcomers to the industry compared to Hughes, and IMO the costs to the company aren't worth the results. I think the relative sales on the B&V title bear that out as well.


B&V isn't selling well?

Compared to ARCHIE, no. I think they expected the first issue of B&V to do nearly as well (or dare they hope, better) than ARCHIE #1, and it fell far short of expectations. It seems like there are a bunch of people reading ARCHIE but not bothering with JUGHEAD or B&V or JOSIE. The quick reduction of REGGIE & ME from ongoing to 5-issue miniseries probably indicates that they've reached a market saturation point. It will be interesting to see what titles are still being published by the end of 2017.
Title: Re: Some questions about Adam Hughes' BETTY & VERONICA
Post by: steveinthecity on November 22, 2016, 12:29:50 AM
B&V#1 sold 70k compared to Archie #1's 100k+.  I recall Archie #10 being in the 13k range, but haven't seen sales of B&V#2. The numbers seem relatively poor.  The Ramones title was around 18k and one would think that would garner more interest.  The most recent Jughead was in the 8k area fwiw.
Title: Re: Some questions about Adam Hughes' BETTY & VERONICA
Post by: BettyReggie on November 22, 2016, 06:08:14 AM
I just pray Reggie & Me sells a lot of comics. I can't believe it's only be a five part mini series. That breaks my heart.
Title: Re: Some questions about Adam Hughes' BETTY & VERONICA
Post by: SAGG on November 22, 2016, 02:31:14 PM

Quote from: DeCarlo Rules on November 21, 2016, 10:43:46 PM
Quote from: irishmoxie on November 21, 2016, 09:29:15 PM
Quote from: DeCarlo Rules on November 19, 2016, 08:22:27 PM
When you consider what he could be getting paid for his art by other publishers, he's got to be the biggest financial drain on ACP's resources of any of the artists working on the New Riverdale titles so far, who are all relative newcomers to the industry compared to Hughes, and IMO the costs to the company aren't worth the results. I think the relative sales on the B&V title bear that out as well.


B&V isn't selling well?

Compared to ARCHIE, no. I think they expected the first issue of B&V to do nearly as well (or dare they hope, better) than ARCHIE #1, and it fell far short of expectations. It seems like there are a bunch of people reading ARCHIE but not bothering with JUGHEAD or B&V or JOSIE. The quick reduction of REGGIE & ME from ongoing to 5-issue miniseries probably indicates that they've reached a market saturation point. It will be interesting to see what titles are still being published by the end of 2017.


What if ACP doesn't succeed on this, I wonder? Could this be the end of it?  ???
Title: Re: Some questions about Adam Hughes' BETTY & VERONICA
Post by: DeCarlo Rules on November 22, 2016, 04:21:06 PM
Quote from: SAGG on November 22, 2016, 02:31:14 PM

Quote from: DeCarlo Rules on November 21, 2016, 10:43:46 PM
Quote from: irishmoxie on November 21, 2016, 09:29:15 PM
Quote from: DeCarlo Rules on November 19, 2016, 08:22:27 PM
When you consider what he could be getting paid for his art by other publishers, he's got to be the biggest financial drain on ACP's resources of any of the artists working on the New Riverdale titles so far, who are all relative newcomers to the industry compared to Hughes, and IMO the costs to the company aren't worth the results. I think the relative sales on the B&V title bear that out as well.


B&V isn't selling well?

Compared to ARCHIE, no. I think they expected the first issue of B&V to do nearly as well (or dare they hope, better) than ARCHIE #1, and it fell far short of expectations. It seems like there are a bunch of people reading ARCHIE but not bothering with JUGHEAD or B&V or JOSIE. The quick reduction of REGGIE & ME from ongoing to 5-issue miniseries probably indicates that they've reached a market saturation point. It will be interesting to see what titles are still being published by the end of 2017.


What if ACP doesn't succeed on this, I wonder? Could this be the end of it?  ???

Well, there's RIVERDALE, so it remains to be seen how that does. My guess would be that regardless of whether the series and the comic book based on it does well or not, it's not going to affect sales of the New Riverdale comics one way or another. "Could this be the end of it?"...  Well, that depends on what "it" is in your query. New Riverdale comics will end eventually, one way or the other... it's just a question of how long.

The end of NR floppy comics wouldn't seem to affect sales of the digests and Super Specials reprinting classic Archie, either. They could certainly enhance those sales, making those titles appeal more to the older readers by offering more pages of new material in each issue. My guess would be that the Super Specials are purchased by a greater percentage of older readers than the digests, and that's where they should start, by making those magazine collections more attractive to older readers purchasing them for themselves by adding a new lead story (20 pages, +/-) in each of the quarterly issues. That would be by Dan Parent, since he's the sole classic Archie creator left.
Title: Re: Some questions about Adam Hughes' BETTY & VERONICA
Post by: Ottawagrant on November 22, 2016, 08:08:45 PM
Digests are a good value for money. As I've mentioned before where I shop I can get 3 digest for $10. Canadian. That is cheaper than subscribing. That's why I personally don't mind when content gets reprinted in digest form. Not just classic Archie, but the 75th Anniversary content. A puzzle to myself is why they don't reprint entire issues in digest form. If a digest came on the market & the cover said 'Pep Comics #100 to 110' (for example), you could mark it as 'sold'. I think reprinting entire issues of classic Sabrina would be a good seller.
Title: Re: Some questions about Adam Hughes' BETTY & VERONICA
Post by: DeCarlo Rules on November 22, 2016, 11:18:41 PM
Quote from: Ottawagrant on November 22, 2016, 08:08:45 PM
Digests are a good value for money. As I've mentioned before where I shop I can get 3 digest for $10. Canadian. That is cheaper than subscribing. That's why I personally don't mind when content gets reprinted in digest form. Not just classic Archie, but the 75th Anniversary content. A puzzle to myself is why they don't reprint entire issues in digest form. If a digest came on the market & the cover said 'Pep Comics #100 to 110' (for example), you could mark it as 'sold'. I think reprinting entire issues of classic Sabrina would be a good seller.

I think you have to consider that the main reader demographic for Archie digests is 8-12 year-old girls. Generally it's a point-of-purchase item for a parent on a shopping trip. While you and I and older readers would certainly love to see whole runs of some of the older classic titles reprinted, that's going to be meaningless to their main reader demographic. This also explains why the bulk of the stories reprinted in the digests are the more recent ones from the last couple of decades.
Title: Re: Some questions about Adam Hughes' BETTY & VERONICA
Post by: steveinthecity on November 22, 2016, 11:37:59 PM
Quote from: Ottawagrant on November 22, 2016, 08:08:45 PM
Digests are a good value for money. As I've mentioned before where I shop I can get 3 digest for $10. Canadian. That is cheaper than subscribing. That's why I personally don't mind when content gets reprinted in digest form. Not just classic Archie, but the 75th Anniversary content. A puzzle to myself is why they don't reprint entire issues in digest form. If a digest came on the market & the cover said 'Pep Comics #100 to 110' (for example), you could mark it as 'sold'. I think reprinting entire issues of classic Sabrina would be a good seller.
At 3/$10 one would wonder what their net profit margin is, or the incentive as the digests apparently make little (if any) revenue from outside advertising.  To previously echo previous thoughts, I don't believe ACP ever really archived stories based on title or subject until more recent years when editors where being called upon to provide such material.


I'll also harken back to a previous comment that offering stories perceived to be "old" would probably generate less interest at the checkout stand. Ignorance is bliss.
Title: Re: Some questions about Adam Hughes' BETTY & VERONICA
Post by: SAGG on November 23, 2016, 04:26:26 AM
Quote from: DeCarlo Rules on November 22, 2016, 04:21:06 PM
Quote from: SAGG on November 22, 2016, 02:31:14 PM

Quote from: DeCarlo Rules on November 21, 2016, 10:43:46 PM
Quote from: irishmoxie on November 21, 2016, 09:29:15 PM
Quote from: DeCarlo Rules on November 19, 2016, 08:22:27 PM
When you consider what he could be getting paid for his art by other publishers, he's got to be the biggest financial drain on ACP's resources of any of the artists working on the New Riverdale titles so far, who are all relative newcomers to the industry compared to Hughes, and IMO the costs to the company aren't worth the results. I think the relative sales on the B&V title bear that out as well.


B&V isn't selling well?

Compared to ARCHIE, no. I think they expected the first issue of B&V to do nearly as well (or dare they hope, better) than ARCHIE #1, and it fell far short of expectations. It seems like there are a bunch of people reading ARCHIE but not bothering with JUGHEAD or B&V or JOSIE. The quick reduction of REGGIE & ME from ongoing to 5-issue miniseries probably indicates that they've reached a market saturation point. It will be interesting to see what titles are still being published by the end of 2017.


What if ACP doesn't succeed on this, I wonder? Could this be the end of it?  ???

Well, there's RIVERDALE, so it remains to be seen how that does. My guess would be that regardless of whether the series and the comic book based on it does well or not, it's not going to affect sales of the New Riverdale comics one way or another. "Could this be the end of it?"...  Well, that depends on what "it" is in your query. New Riverdale comics will end eventually, one way or the other... it's just a question of how long.

The end of NR floppy comics wouldn't seem to affect sales of the digests and Super Specials reprinting classic Archie, either. They could certainly enhance those sales, making those titles appeal more to the older readers by offering more pages of new material in each issue. My guess would be that the Super Specials are purchased by a greater percentage of older readers than the digests, and that's where they should start, by making those magazine collections more attractive to older readers purchasing them for themselves by adding a new lead story (20 pages, +/-) in each of the quarterly issues. That would be by Dan Parent, since he's the sole classic Archie creator left.
Bolling's no longer there? Man...
Title: Re: Some questions about Adam Hughes' BETTY & VERONICA
Post by: DeCarlo Rules on November 23, 2016, 06:21:34 AM
Quote from: steveinthecity on November 22, 2016, 11:37:59 PM
To previously echo previous thoughts, I don't believe ACP ever really archived stories based on title or subject until more recent years when editors where being called upon to provide such material.

In the past, they did maintain a library of bound volumes of the printed comics, at least up to the early 1990s, that went back to the very beginning of their publishing history. I couldn't say whether or not anyone had ever bothered to index those stories by keywords or themes or story elements or characters in any way. That would probably have been a labor-intensive project in itself. But the library was there for editors to use in looking for stories to reprint.
Title: Re: Some questions about Adam Hughes' BETTY & VERONICA
Post by: PTF on November 23, 2016, 03:01:26 PM
Okay, finally got to pick both issues up.

What I liked.

1. The art. It's Adam Hughes so you know it's going to have great art. And I actually like the story, the dialogue and the characters. And the jokes are pretty funny.

2. Crazy Betty. The best version of Betty: her being super nice and also being nutso.

3. Ethel. I'm glad he actually drew her not so pretty. Heck, Ethel exists in one of the titles! The best she could do before was being undead in Afterlife. :)

4. Heel Kevin Keller. Yeah, he hasn't said much, but I already find him way more interesting than the original. Not even close. I'm not joking.

5. Veronica. I can see some going "Too Cheryl" But it is a new universe with it's own continuity and I did find her entertaining. She's so incredibly smug and stacking everything against Betty, it's going to be great to see her lose. Favorite moment had to be the liquor license and her kissing it then winking at Betty.


What I didn't like.

1. Pop Tate. ...Um, ya couldn't draw him fat because when I first looked at him, I didn't recognize him.

2. The Hot Dog stuff. ...Um, why Hot Dog? I mean, if Hot Dog did this for the Jughead book I could understand that. Honestly, even then I'd be willing to throw logic out the window if I knew this book was going to keep on schedule. It's Archie Comics and it's Adam Hughes. Eh-eh. So we're losing page time. Plus...why can Hot Dog talk and Caramel can't? That's not fair. :)

3. Toni Topaz. She is the most popular unpopular character I've ever seen!! :)

4. The cussing. It's not so much the words as who is doing it. I just can't see any version of Betty cussing.

5. The carwash scene. Okay, you had a bunch of middle age guys taking pictures of teenage girls washing cars in 57 degree weather. I mean, it's funny, but--yyyeeeessshhh.

So yeah, it's not perfect but it's still very good. But I can see why some people would be turned off. The first issue was about a B and the next a B+.
Title: Re: Some questions about Adam Hughes' BETTY & VERONICA
Post by: DeCarlo Rules on November 23, 2016, 06:41:58 PM
Quote from: SAGG on November 23, 2016, 04:26:26 AM
Bolling's no longer there? Man...

No one's been fired. It's just that nobody but Dan Parent is currently getting any new assignments to draw covers or stories in the classic Archie style. There may still be some unpublished stories by Bolling that haven't seen print yet. Since many of the stories have a seasonal background, they don't print summer-themed stories in the winter digest issues and vice-versa. If they have a bunch of unpublished summer stories that didn't get printed last summer, they have to wait until next summer to publish them, and there are a finite number of digest issues that come out in the appropriate months.
Title: Re: Some questions about Adam Hughes' BETTY & VERONICA
Post by: BettyReggie on November 23, 2016, 07:50:54 PM
I'm  just so upset that this comic is coming out so slowly. What's going on? Too many delays. Do you they will change the artist soon?
Title: Re: Some questions about Adam Hughes' BETTY & VERONICA
Post by: DeCarlo Rules on November 24, 2016, 12:00:56 AM
Quote from: BettyReggie on November 23, 2016, 07:50:54 PM
I'm  just so upset that this comic is coming out so slowly. What's going on? Too many delays. Do you they will change the artist soon?

#3 is the last issue for Adam Hughes.
Title: Re: Some questions about Adam Hughes' BETTY & VERONICA
Post by: DeCarlo Rules on November 24, 2016, 12:08:03 AM
Quote from: PTF on November 23, 2016, 03:01:26 PM
Toni Topaz. She is the most popular unpopular character I've ever seen!! :)

She's a Tom DeFalco creation. She's got tons of untapped potential, as demonstrated in her introductory story in Jughead Double Digest #176. Also one of the few black female characters (apart from Nancy Woods and Valerie of the Pussycats) in the ACP universe, but even in just a measly few appearances, her unique character is already better-defined than Nancy or Valerie. Mostly she just seems to get included on covers a lot because of her eye-catching character design, with magenta hair and candy-colored fashions.

(https://www.archiefans.com/index.php?media/file/toni-topaz-fun-fact.1911/preview/)
Title: Re: Some questions about Adam Hughes' BETTY & VERONICA
Post by: steveinthecity on November 24, 2016, 04:48:02 AM
Quote from: DeCarlo Rules on November 23, 2016, 06:21:34 AM
Quote from: steveinthecity on November 22, 2016, 11:37:59 PM
To previously echo previous thoughts, I don't believe ACP ever really archived stories based on title or subject until more recent years when editors where being called upon to provide such material.

In the past, they did maintain a library of bound volumes of the printed comics, at least up to the early 1990s, that went back to the very beginning of their publishing history. I couldn't say whether or not anyone had ever bothered to index those stories by keywords or themes or story elements or characters in any way. That would probably have been a labor-intensive project in itself. But the library was there for editors to use in looking for stories to reprint.
Did I imply ACP didn't maintain any archive?   ???   Not my intent if my post came across that way.


The quick sources for my comment originated from old posts from Suzanimated (former Digest Editor) and forsythe.  Susanna had described there wasn't much done in the way of organization by theme and such for several decades.  Forsythe as we know has a much larger archive of Archie related material than ACP itself, and provides scans, photos, etc. to books being produced because the ACP archive is full of "holes" (Not meant as slight towards them) and similarly echoed Suzanimated's comments.

I don't know that I ever suggested there was no library for editors to use as reference material.


Title: Re: Some questions about Adam Hughes' BETTY & VERONICA
Post by: DeCarlo Rules on November 24, 2016, 04:59:55 AM
Quote from: steveinthecity on November 24, 2016, 04:48:02 AM
Quote from: DeCarlo Rules on November 23, 2016, 06:21:34 AM
Quote from: steveinthecity on November 22, 2016, 11:37:59 PM
To previously echo previous thoughts, I don't believe ACP ever really archived stories based on title or subject until more recent years when editors where being called upon to provide such material.

In the past, they did maintain a library of bound volumes of the printed comics, at least up to the early 1990s, that went back to the very beginning of their publishing history. I couldn't say whether or not anyone had ever bothered to index those stories by keywords or themes or story elements or characters in any way. That would probably have been a labor-intensive project in itself. But the library was there for editors to use in looking for stories to reprint.
Did I imply ACP didn't maintain any archive?   ???   Not my intent if my post came across that way.


The quick sources for my comment originated from old posts from Suzanimated (former Digest Editor) and forsythe.  Susanna had described there wasn't much done in the way of organization by theme and such for several decades.  Forsythe as we know has a much larger archive of Archie related material than ACP itself, and provides scans, photos, etc. to books being produced because the ACP archive is full of "holes" (Not meant as slight towards them) and similarly echoed Suzanimated's comments.

I don't know that I ever suggested there was no library for editors to use as reference material.

Just pointing out that such an indexing project, even if undertaken circa the early 1990s, might have required an unjustifiable amount of man-hours, and kept a team of research assistants (or assistant editors, or interns... I don't know if ACP ever had interns) busy for several years. Although such a database would undoubtedly prove useful to editors in the future, ACP didn't have any sort of vested interest in continuity the way Marvel and DC did (where a lot of the work might have been accomplished before even starting, based on a fanbase of knowledge). Michael L. Fleisher's (DC) Encylopedia of Super-Heroes comes to mind here...  At any rate, before the relatively modern concept of trade paperback collections, such precision in the selection of stories for digests was hardly required. It was probably more important just to try to keep track of how often a particular story was reprinted (although... they don't seem awfully concerned about that today).

Prior to a decade or so ago, it must have seemed quite simple. You'd know where to look to find Archie stories, Josie stories, Jughead stories, Betty & Veronica stories, Reggie, Mr. Weatherbee, or Moose stories. You'd know where to look to find 1-page, 2-page, and 1/2-page gag fillers (primarily the JOKE BOOKs). You could find seasonal stories simply by following the cover dates, and the only 'themes' that mattered were "Christmas" and "Summer Fun" (again, just check the cover dates). There rarely was any occasion to locate specific things like minor supporting character appearances or "that one story where Archie translated Spanish", or "all the stories built around the gag of Smithers bodily ejecting Archie from the Lodge mansion". Even when they finally did get to trade collections in the 1990s with THE BEST OF THE FORTIES... well, that was ONE decade's worth of comics to sift through. At the rate those books were coming out, they had plenty of time to do them.

If I had to guess, I'd bet when they got stuck trying to find anything in the library, they'd just consult Victor Gorelick. He'd been with the company in one capacity or another since (IIRC) 1957, so he probably had a pretty good feel for that kind of stuff.

That said, now that they're digitizing stuff, they should be doing that kind of indexing as part of the process...
Title: Re: Some questions about Adam Hughes' BETTY & VERONICA
Post by: steveinthecity on November 24, 2016, 05:05:05 AM
Quote from: PTF on November 23, 2016, 03:01:26 PM
Okay, finally got to pick both issues up.

What I liked.

1. The art. It's Adam Hughes so you know it's going to have great art. And I actually like the story, the dialogue and the characters. And the jokes are pretty funny.

2. Crazy Betty. The best version of Betty: her being super nice and also being nutso.

3. Ethel. I'm glad he actually drew her not so pretty. Heck, Ethel exists in one of the titles! The best she could do before was being undead in Afterlife. :)

4. Heel Kevin Keller. Yeah, he hasn't said much, but I already find him way more interesting than the original. Not even close. I'm not joking.

5. Veronica. I can see some going "Too Cheryl" But it is a new universe with it's own continuity and I did find her entertaining. She's so incredibly smug and stacking everything against Betty, it's going to be great to see her lose. Favorite moment had to be the liquor license and her kissing it then winking at Betty.


What I didn't like.

1. Pop Tate. ...Um, ya couldn't draw him fat because when I first looked at him, I didn't recognize him.

2. The Hot Dog stuff. ...Um, why Hot Dog? I mean, if Hot Dog did this for the Jughead book I could understand that. Honestly, even then I'd be willing to throw logic out the window if I knew this book was going to keep on schedule. It's Archie Comics and it's Adam Hughes. Eh-eh. So we're losing page time. Plus...why can Hot Dog talk and Caramel can't? That's not fair. :)

3. Toni Topaz. She is the most popular unpopular character I've ever seen!! :)

4. The cussing. It's not so much the words as who is doing it. I just can't see any version of Betty cussing.

5. The carwash scene. Okay, you had a bunch of middle age guys taking pictures of teenage girls washing cars in 57 degree weather. I mean, it's funny, but--yyyeeeessshhh.

So yeah, it's not perfect but it's still very good. But I can see why some people would be turned off. The first issue was about a B and the next a B+.
PTF, as much as I agree on the bullet points you've laid out, I'd have to downgrade much harsher.  I just feel the story is both relying too heavily on the relationship "classic" readers have with the characters while the same time putting forth something entirely new and unrelated to past incarnations, which makes the story just seem like random events. With no real nod to character history, why are they behaving as they are?


I did give extra credit to Hot Dog smoking a cigar btw.
Title: Re: Some questions about Adam Hughes' BETTY & VERONICA
Post by: BettyReggie on November 24, 2016, 08:22:20 AM
Even in issue one Veronica was very bitchy. Sitting while Betty raked the yard. She could helped her . But no Veronica is just so evil in this reboot. I don't see them ever becoming friends again. The scene at Pop's where Veronica walks into Pop's & Betty saw you are not welcome there. But Pop says she come in. Why would he let her? Veronica's father is trying to get rid of Pop.  When Veronica put her polished finger down on the counter, she just looked so evil.
Title: Re: Some questions about Adam Hughes' BETTY & VERONICA
Post by: irishmoxie on November 24, 2016, 03:07:12 PM
Quote from: DeCarlo Rules on November 24, 2016, 12:00:56 AM
Quote from: BettyReggie on November 23, 2016, 07:50:54 PM
I'm  just so upset that this comic is coming out so slowly. What's going on? Too many delays. Do you they will change the artist soon?

#3 is the last issue for Adam Hughes.


Rumor or truth? Who's the next artist?
Title: Re: Some questions about Adam Hughes' BETTY & VERONICA
Post by: BettyReggie on November 24, 2016, 05:41:16 PM
I haven't heard anything yet.
Title: Re: Some questions about Adam Hughes' BETTY & VERONICA
Post by: SAGG on November 24, 2016, 07:42:08 PM

Quote from: BettyReggie on November 24, 2016, 08:22:20 AM
Even in issue one Veronica was very bitchy. Sitting while Betty raked the yard. She could helped her . But no Veronica is just so evil in this reboot. I don't see them ever becoming friends again. The scene at Pop's where Veronica walks into Pop's & Betty saw you are not welcome there. But Pop says she come in. Why would he let her? Veronica's father is trying to get rid of Pop.  When Veronica put her polished finger down on the counter, she just looked so evil.


Because I guess that's what kind of man Pop is, which is why Betty and her friends are standing up for him. I think Ronica will eventually see this, as well as how she's behaving against Betty. Besides, in Archie (SPOILER ALERT!), we see a nicer Ronica. If you've been reading that one, she tried to help a girl who had been humiliated by Cheryl at the girl's school. The girl of course, didn't believe her, but at least Ronica tried...
Title: Re: Some questions about Adam Hughes' BETTY & VERONICA
Post by: DeCarlo Rules on November 25, 2016, 12:37:50 AM
Quote from: irishmoxie on November 24, 2016, 03:07:12 PM
Quote from: DeCarlo Rules on November 24, 2016, 12:00:56 AM
Quote from: BettyReggie on November 23, 2016, 07:50:54 PM
I'm  just so upset that this comic is coming out so slowly. What's going on? Too many delays. Do you they will change the artist soon?

#3 is the last issue for Adam Hughes.

Rumor or truth? Who's the next artist?

Adam Hughes is an expensive talent to hire for ACP. His original contract was for three issues. I can't see that being renewed unless the book sold phenomenally well beyond expectations (and Hughes probably has a limited window of availability between his other paying assignments). There's been no announcement to date of who will follow as the new creative team on B&V, but at the rate the issues have been coming out, there's still plenty of time for them to hype a new creative team for #4. They probably knew he was going to be slow to deliver a completed issue, but they're balancing that against the marquee value of Adam Hughes' name as a main attraction. They'll need to put the book out more frequently if they're going to generate more profit, but they obviously wanted to create buzz by launching the title with a big name.

I can't tell you what comes next, but I can point you at a look at "What Might Have Been"...
http://www.adistantsoil.com/2011/09/27/m-unpublished-betty-and-veronica-art-for-archie-comics/ (http://www.adistantsoil.com/2011/09/27/m-unpublished-betty-and-veronica-art-for-archie-comics/)

(https://www.archiefans.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.adistantsoil.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2011%2F09%2Fveronica-363x500.jpg&hash=3ba1d87e4ec65cedf286a1b2767de10a527a1754)(https://www.archiefans.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.adistantsoil.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2011%2F09%2Fbetty-384x500.jpg&hash=d11827e7e142b13db0de2fcf7a0962985f9748f4)
Title: Re: Some questions about Adam Hughes' BETTY & VERONICA
Post by: Fernando Ruiz on November 25, 2016, 05:25:39 PM
Quote from: Deb on November 20, 2016, 05:59:08 PM
  Jughead has been fun, but I get the sneaky fekeling that it isn't selling very well.


It depends on how you're setting the bar.


According to October's sales charts, Jughead sold a little over 8,000 copies. That is about 1,000 copies less than the month before. The Archie title sold about 13K which is also down about a thousand copies from the previous month.* Both titles are still selling a bit better than their pre-reboot counterparts, but the following is worth noting...


1) The creative teams of both books are paid far more than us old "classic" artists ever were! That alone makes these books more expensive to publish than they used to be.


2) The numbers of these books are artificially inflated by the number of variant covers being sold. An issue with three different variants that sells 8,000 copies does not necessarily translate into 8,000 separate individual readers! Something to think about for the Long Haul!


I'm curious to see what happens to Jughead in a few issues if his decline continues.




[size=78%]* And down a whopping EIGHTY-THREE THOUSAND copies from Archie #1![/size]
Title: Re: Some questions about Adam Hughes' BETTY & VERONICA
Post by: Fernando Ruiz on November 25, 2016, 05:27:45 PM
Quote from: DeCarlo Rules on November 25, 2016, 12:37:50 AM

His original contract was for three issues.

(https://www.archiefans.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.adistantsoil.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2011%2F09%2Fveronica-363x500.jpg&hash=3ba1d87e4ec65cedf286a1b2767de10a527a1754)(https://www.archiefans.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.adistantsoil.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2011%2F09%2Fbetty-384x500.jpg&hash=d11827e7e142b13db0de2fcf7a0962985f9748f4)


I'd heard four.



Title: Re: Some questions about Adam Hughes' BETTY & VERONICA
Post by: Fernando Ruiz on November 25, 2016, 05:42:09 PM
Quote from: DeCarlo Rules on November 24, 2016, 12:08:03 AM

She's a Tom DeFalco creation.


Well sort of...


I think I've told this story before... Archie Comics president Mike Pellerito was obsessed with bringing diversity to the Riverdale cast who he constantly described as being "too lily white." A noble enough sentiment, but he often urged us to shoe-horn Chuck and Nanci into stories and cover gags where they really served no purpose other than to be "the black friend." There were quite a few covers I'd drawn where Pellerito's only response would be, "Could you put Chuck in there?"


Eventually Pellerito decided that Chuck and Nanci were pretty boring and ordered a moratorium on his previous unspoken standing decree that they be included on every cover. He also determined that Riverdale needed new exciting minorities. From this sprang Trev and Toni Topaz.


I wasn't there for Trev, but I was in the office the day Toni Topaz was created by committee by the entire art department. You should've heard some of the other names being suggested for the character! I wish I could remember them, but I do recall they all sounded like we were naming the first stripper in Riverdale. Since I was right there in the office, I was asked to draw a few sketches of this new character. I had a magazine with me with a picture of the singer, Rihannain it. In the picture, she was wearing a hat. This became my inspiration for Toni. I forget if I decided to give her the pink hair or if someone else did.


Toni was put into that first Jughead story and almost immediately afterwards, Archie Comics went into one of its recent big money crunches. As a result, the digests saw a huge cutback in new material. Toni continued to appear on almost all of the digest covers but by that point, she'd appeared in only one or two stories. Most readers' responses to her were, "Who's THAT?"







Title: Re: Some questions about Adam Hughes' BETTY & VERONICA
Post by: irishmoxie on November 25, 2016, 05:55:56 PM
Quote from: Fernando Ruiz on November 25, 2016, 05:42:09 PM
Quote from: DeCarlo Rules on November 24, 2016, 12:08:03 AM

She's a Tom DeFalco creation.


Well sort of...


I think I've told this story before... Archie Comics president Mike Pellerito was obsessed with bringing diversity to the Riverdale cast who he constantly described as being "too lily white." A noble enough sentiment, but he often urged us to shoe-horn Chuck and Nanci into stories and cover gags where they really served no purpose other than to be "the black friend." There were quite a few covers I'd drawn where Pellerito's only response would be, "Could you put Chuck in there?"


Eventually Pellerito decided that Chuck and Nanci were pretty boring and ordered a moratorium on his previous unspoken standing decree that they be included on every cover. He also determined that Riverdale needed new exciting minorities. From this sprang Trev and Toni Topaz.


I wasn't there for Trev, but I was in the office the day Toni Topaz was created by committee by the entire art department. You should've heard some of the other names being suggested for the character! I wish I could remember them, but I do recall they all sounded like we were naming the first stripper in Riverdale. Since I was right there in the office, I was asked to draw a few sketches of this new character. I had a magazine with me with a picture of the singer, Rihannain it. In the picture, she was wearing a hat. This became my inspiration for Toni. I forget if I decided to give her the pink hair or if someone else did.


Toni was put into that first Jughead story and almost immediately afterwards, Archie Comics went into one of its recent big money crunches. As a result, the digests saw a huge cutback in new material. Toni continued to appear on almost all of the digest covers but by that point, she'd appeared in only one or two stories. Most readers' responses to her were, "Who's THAT?"


More stories like this!! Fernando, you need to write an autobiography.


The character of Toni has a lot of potential. She's certainly more interesting than Chuck or Nancy. They could've used her in a lot of stories but the budget crunch explains why she was just relegated to digest covers.
Title: Re: Some questions about Adam Hughes' BETTY & VERONICA
Post by: Fernando Ruiz on November 25, 2016, 06:13:39 PM
Quote from: irishmoxie on November 25, 2016, 05:55:56 PM

More stories like this!! Fernando, you need to write an autobiography.



These days I post most of my Archie stories and commentaries over at my own blog. Please check over there for my behind the scenes accounts.


http://fernandoruizeverybody.com (http://fernandoruizeverybody.com)

I keep threatening to write a lengthy telling about my time on Life With Archie. One of these days when I get a little time, I'm going to sit down and do it.

I've scaled back my posts on this board simply because as Archie Comics retreats further and further into my past, I have less to offer on it. I certainly have made my feelings concerning Archie Comics' current direction known. What else is left to say? Still, I do check back from time to time so if anyone has questions for me specifically, I'll answer as best I can.






Title: Re: Some questions about Adam Hughes' BETTY & VERONICA
Post by: SAGG on November 25, 2016, 08:12:00 PM

Quote from: Fernando Ruiz on November 25, 2016, 06:13:39 PM
Quote from: irishmoxie on November 25, 2016, 05:55:56 PM

More stories like this!! Fernando, you need to write an autobiography.



These days I post most of my Archie stories and commentaries over at my own blog. Please check over there for my behind the scenes accounts.


http://fernandoruizeverybody.com (http://fernandoruizeverybody.com)

I keep threatening to write a lengthy telling about my time on Life With Archie. One of these days when I get a little time, I'm going to sit down and do it.

I've scaled back my posts on this board simply because as Archie Comics retreats further and further into my past, I have less to offer on it. I certainly have made my feelings concerning Archie Comics' current direction known. What else is left to say? Still, I do check back from time to time so if anyone has questions for me specifically, I'll answer as best I can.


I've got two: What if ACP wanted to change the direction of Archie like they have now, but wanted to keep you Classic artists? Would you have any trouble doing what they wanted, or would you have felt uncomfortable with the change? What if they wanted you to change your artwork as well to match the change in the story retro-wise, something more "serious-looking"?  :coolsmiley:
Title: Re: Some questions about Adam Hughes' BETTY & VERONICA
Post by: DeCarlo Rules on November 26, 2016, 12:23:15 AM
Quote from: Fernando Ruiz on November 25, 2016, 05:27:45 PM
Quote from: DeCarlo Rules on November 25, 2016, 12:37:50 AM

His original contract was for three issues.

(https://www.archiefans.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.adistantsoil.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2011%2F09%2Fveronica-363x500.jpg&hash=3ba1d87e4ec65cedf286a1b2767de10a527a1754)(https://www.archiefans.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.adistantsoil.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2011%2F09%2Fbetty-384x500.jpg&hash=d11827e7e142b13db0de2fcf7a0962985f9748f4)


I'd heard four.

I'd heard three, but you might be right about that. Three sounds like an unusually small number of issues, but I didn't question it because I was still wondering how a cash-poor (before contracting independent financing) comics publisher like ACP could afford to hire Adam Hughes in the first place. I guess we'll know one way or the other when issue #3 comes out, if it's the conclusion of the B vs V story or not.
Title: Re: Some questions about Adam Hughes' BETTY & VERONICA
Post by: DeCarlo Rules on November 26, 2016, 12:36:04 AM
Quote from: SAGG on November 25, 2016, 08:12:00 PM

Quote from: Fernando Ruiz on November 25, 2016, 06:13:39 PM
Quote from: irishmoxie on November 25, 2016, 05:55:56 PM

More stories like this!! Fernando, you need to write an autobiography.



These days I post most of my Archie stories and commentaries over at my own blog. Please check over there for my behind the scenes accounts.


http://fernandoruizeverybody.com (http://fernandoruizeverybody.com)

I keep threatening to write a lengthy telling about my time on Life With Archie. One of these days when I get a little time, I'm going to sit down and do it.

I've scaled back my posts on this board simply because as Archie Comics retreats further and further into my past, I have less to offer on it. I certainly have made my feelings concerning Archie Comics' current direction known. What else is left to say? Still, I do check back from time to time so if anyone has questions for me specifically, I'll answer as best I can.


I've got two: What if ACP wanted to change the direction of Archie like they have now, but wanted to keep you Classic artists? Would you have any trouble doing what they wanted, or would you have felt uncomfortable with the change? What if they wanted you to change your artwork as well to match the change in the story retro-wise, something more "serious-looking"?  :coolsmiley:

You're probably ignoring a big thing here, which is the publicity buzz they get from radical sweeping changes like a complete overhaul of creative personnel. Just changing the style isn't enough for them to get noticed by the comics news hype sources, unless they completely toss everything out the window.

The problem with ACP is that all of the big decisions are all generated by top-down thinking (management issuing marching orders), and they didn't seem to encourage a lot of ideas for new directions and change from the (formerly-)existing creative staff. Then again, even when there was some positive action like mandates for creating new characters and diversifying ethnicity, there was never any real follow-through, as Fernando's story about Toni Topaz illustrates (and the same applies to the New Kids, as well).

Fernando has done some commission art in the 'New Riverdale' makeover style, which he has posted on his blog page. If you look at some of the artwork posted in his portfolio there, you'll see that he's quite adept at drawing "serious-looking" characters, so that would never have been an issue.

For me personally, the branding of the characters and their specific personalities are largely meaningless outside of the context of cartoon style and situation comedy. ACP recognized this as their main selling point in the 1950s when they affixed the following tag line to the bottoms of some pages:
(https://www.archiefans.com/index.php?media/file/archie-comics-are-comical-comics.324/)
You can certainly add layers of characterization or subtext to the stories on top of that, but THAT is the core, the raison d'etre, for Archie Comics in the first place.
Title: Re: Some questions about Adam Hughes' BETTY & VERONICA
Post by: DeCarlo Rules on November 26, 2016, 12:41:56 AM
Quote from: Fernando Ruiz on November 25, 2016, 05:42:09 PM
Quote from: DeCarlo Rules on November 24, 2016, 12:08:03 AM

She's a Tom DeFalco creation.


Well sort of...


I think I've told this story before... Archie Comics president Mike Pellerito was obsessed with bringing diversity to the Riverdale cast who he constantly described as being "too lily white." A noble enough sentiment, but he often urged us to shoe-horn Chuck and Nanci into stories and cover gags where they really served no purpose other than to be "the black friend." There were quite a few covers I'd drawn where Pellerito's only response would be, "Could you put Chuck in there?"


Eventually Pellerito decided that Chuck and Nanci were pretty boring and ordered a moratorium on his previous unspoken standing decree that they be included on every cover. He also determined that Riverdale needed new exciting minorities. From this sprang Trev and Toni Topaz.


I wasn't there for Trev, but I was in the office the day Toni Topaz was created by committee by the entire art department. You should've heard some of the other names being suggested for the character! I wish I could remember them, but I do recall they all sounded like we were naming the first stripper in Riverdale. Since I was right there in the office, I was asked to draw a few sketches of this new character. I had a magazine with me with a picture of the singer, Rihannain it. In the picture, she was wearing a hat. This became my inspiration for Toni. I forget if I decided to give her the pink hair or if someone else did.


Toni was put into that first Jughead story and almost immediately afterwards, Archie Comics went into one of its recent big money crunches. As a result, the digests saw a huge cutback in new material. Toni continued to appear on almost all of the digest covers but by that point, she'd appeared in only one or two stories. Most readers' responses to her were, "Who's THAT?"

This kind of behind-the-curtain stuff is fascinating, Fernando. I thought Trev was part of the "New Kids" initiative, which included many new ethnically-diverse characters, or maybe he came about even earlier, as part of Dan Parent's "Archie Marries Valerie" storyline. Maybe Dan would know more about the genesis of those characters. I'll have to ask him sometime.
Title: Re: Some questions about Adam Hughes' BETTY & VERONICA
Post by: Fernando Ruiz on November 28, 2016, 01:08:59 AM
Quote from: SAGG on November 25, 2016, 08:12:00 PM

I've got two: What if ACP wanted to change the direction of Archie like they have now, but wanted to keep you Classic artists? Would you have any trouble doing what they wanted, or would you have felt uncomfortable with the change? What if they wanted you to change your artwork as well to match the change in the story retro-wise, something more "serious-looking"?  :coolsmiley:


   If Archie had opted to have the classic artists draw the reboot books, I would draw it just as I would any other job. I'd already modified my approach to the characters somewhat while I was drawing the Life With Archie magazine series. If ACP had wanted the looks of the characters modernized, I certainly, as a professional, would have no problem doing that. As a fan, of course, my preference would be for the characters to remain in their classic style! I have always worked very hard to remain a diverse artists capable of working in many styles, genres, and tones. Drawing a more serious or mature Archie simply would have been just another job for me.


At New York Comic con this year, I had my very first conversation with Archie president Mike Pellerito since my "departure" from Archie Comics. To his credit, the conversation came about at his suggestion and as an attempt to repair the relationship between Archie Comics and myself. (Rest assured nothing came of this.) In the course of this exchange, I'd suggestion that one of the reasons why my "dismissal" had been unnecessary was because I easily could've drawn any one of the reboot titles. He responded very quickly with, "It wouldn't have sold."


I have no illusions that a reboot title drawn by myself would've sold in the same numbers as the Fiona Staples drawn issues, but we would have seen a boost in sales simply from the reboot alone. We also would have seen that boost be far more sustainable since I would have stayed with the title far longer than Staples' three issues. (The book has been bleeding readers since she left!) Plus, with a more moderate modification, they would've had material that could more seamlessly be used in the digests further on down the line.


Unfortunately, Pellerito was fixated on using (however temporarily) "big names" and trying to use the "news" of a total stylistic overhaul both in terms of story and art to further bolster the "splash" they were looking to make. Admittedly, they did make a bit of a splash, but the ripples of that splash are very evidently waning now.


I may have to tell the wonderful, heart-warming story about how us "classic guys" first learned of the reboot. It's a beautiful story that is very pertinent to the Holiday season, but its a story for another time...


Title: Re: Some questions about Adam Hughes' BETTY & VERONICA
Post by: Fernando Ruiz on November 28, 2016, 01:10:58 AM
Quote from: DeCarlo Rules on November 26, 2016, 12:41:56 AM

This kind of behind-the-curtain stuff is fascinating, Fernando. I thought Trev was part of the "New Kids" initiative, which included many new ethnically-diverse characters, or maybe he came about even earlier, as part of Dan Parent's "Archie Marries Valerie" storyline. Maybe Dan would know more about the genesis of those characters. I'll have to ask him sometime.


I'm not a hundred percent sure of the details behind Trev's creation. He was Dan's idea. I'm pretty sure he did stem from Pellerito's call for more interesting minorities.



Title: Re: Some questions about Adam Hughes' BETTY & VERONICA
Post by: DeCarlo Rules on November 28, 2016, 04:37:35 AM
Quote from: Fernando Ruiz on November 28, 2016, 01:08:59 AM
At New York Comic con this year, I had my very first conversation with Archie president Mike Pellerito. To his credit, the conversation came about at his suggestion and as an attempt to repair the relationship between Archie Comics and myself. (Rest assured nothing came of this.) In the course of this exchange, I'd suggestion that one of the reasons why my "dismissal" had been unnecessary was because I easily could've drawn any one of the reboot titles. He responded very quickly with, "It wouldn't have sold."


I have no illusions that a reboot title drawn by myself would've sold in the same numbers as the Fiona Staples drawn issues, but we would have seen a boost in sales simply from the reboot alone. We also would have seen that boost be far more sustainable since I would have stayed with the title far longer than Staples' three issues. (The book has been bleeding readers since she left!) Plus, with a more moderate modification, they would've had material that could more seamlessly be used in the digests further on down the line.


Unfortunately, Pellerito was fixated on using (however temporarily) "big names" and trying to use the "news" of a total stylistic overhaul both in terms of story and art to further bolster the "splash" they were looking to make. Admittedly, they did make a bit of a splash, but the ripples of that splash are very evidently waning now.

When you come down to it, it's all marketing in the comic book business these days. What comic book fans call a reboot, is really all about what marketing refers to as "rebranding", and what rebranding in this case is, is the response to the question "How do we sell Archie Comics to people who don't like Archie Comics?" How do they change the perception of potential consumers from negative or neutral to positive or at least open-minded? The answer to that question almost always involves some sort of radical, sweeping change. And in order to effect that change, they often wind up throwing the baby out with the bathwater. They'll do nearly anything to create an awareness, curiosity or interest in an "all-new, all-different" product. Having seen it happen any number of times, however, the revolving turnstyle of 'out with the old, in with the new' becomes tiresome after a while. They would like to sell you on the idea that the employment of marketing techniques is, in itself, a form of creativity, but it's not.

Quote from: Fernando Ruiz on November 28, 2016, 01:08:59 AMI may have to tell the wonderful, heart-warming story about how us "classic guys" first learned of the reboot. It's a beautiful story that is very pertinent to the Holiday season, but its a story for another time...

I'd love to hear this sometime, if and when it feels appropriate and you're up to it.
Title: Re: Some questions about Adam Hughes' BETTY & VERONICA
Post by: SAGG on November 28, 2016, 10:25:55 AM

Quote from: Fernando Ruiz on November 28, 2016, 01:08:59 AM
Quote from: SAGG on November 25, 2016, 08:12:00 PM

I've got two: What if ACP wanted to change the direction of Archie like they have now, but wanted to keep you Classic artists? Would you have any trouble doing what they wanted, or would you have felt uncomfortable with the change? What if they wanted you to change your artwork as well to match the change in the story retro-wise, something more "serious-looking"?  :coolsmiley:


   If Archie had opted to have the classic artists draw the reboot books, I would draw it just as I would any other job. I'd already modified my approach to the characters somewhat while I was drawing the Life With Archie magazine series. If ACP had wanted the looks of the characters modernized, I certainly, as a professional, would have no problem doing that. As a fan, of course, my preference would be for the characters to remain in their classic style! I have always worked very hard to remain a diverse artists capable of working in many styles, genres, and tones. Drawing a more serious or mature Archie simply would have been just another job for me.


At New York Comic con this year, I had my very first conversation with Archie president Mike Pellerito since my "departure" from Archie Comics. To his credit, the conversation came about at his suggestion and as an attempt to repair the relationship between Archie Comics and myself. (Rest assured nothing came of this.) In the course of this exchange, I'd suggestion that one of the reasons why my "dismissal" had been unnecessary was because I easily could've drawn any one of the reboot titles. He responded very quickly with, "It wouldn't have sold."


I have no illusions that a reboot title drawn by myself would've sold in the same numbers as the Fiona Staples drawn issues, but we would have seen a boost in sales simply from the reboot alone. We also would have seen that boost be far more sustainable since I would have stayed with the title far longer than Staples' three issues. (The book has been bleeding readers since she left!) Plus, with a more moderate modification, they would've had material that could more seamlessly be used in the digests further on down the line.


Unfortunately, Pellerito was fixated on using (however temporarily) "big names" and trying to use the "news" of a total stylistic overhaul both in terms of story and art to further bolster the "splash" they were looking to make. Admittedly, they did make a bit of a splash, but the ripples of that splash are very evidently waning now.


I may have to tell the wonderful, heart-warming story about how us "classic guys" first learned of the reboot. It's a beautiful story that is very pertinent to the Holiday season, but its a story for another time...


Thank you for the response, Mr. Ruiz. I just wished that ACP could've kept you and the rest of the other Classic artists, if nothing else for the digest stories, even though you wouldn't be there full time....
Title: Re: Some questions about Adam Hughes' BETTY & VERONICA
Post by: Ottawagrant on November 28, 2016, 07:36:20 PM
The big problem with reboots is titles cannibalize themselves. Example? Marvel Comics. Something terrible happens! Gasp! It drags all their titles into it, and then. . . it's all solved by the Fantastic Four.  All titles are reset to issue #1 & then a year later it starts all over again. As mentioned above it's all about the 'buzz' that it generates. That may work for the super hero titles of Marvel & DC, but Archie? Different animal. The fact that Archie reprints less & less older stories is a real shame. I've mentioned this story before & I still laugh about it. It's the one where all the kids are being kissed by a 'kissing bandit', which turns out to be Betty. I think the story is funnier today than 50 years ago. I really think, for the last few years, that THAT is what is missing. I've heard it from other people. 'Why aren't Archie comics funny anymore?'. It's like Woody Allen movies, which he parodied in one of his films. Why don't you make funny movies anymore Woody? Like your old one's.
Title: Re: Some questions about Adam Hughes' BETTY & VERONICA
Post by: Bluto on December 02, 2016, 09:54:41 AM
I find that I'm in agreement with many of you. In an attempt to bring in new customers, companies, not just Archie, are indeed throwing out the baby with the bathwater and alienating long-time fans. I now only buy and read one Marvel title. The only DC titles I buy and read are the Batman '66 and Wonder Woman '77 ones and Astro City. I certainly understand the need to bring in new customers if the comic book business is to survive, but do they have to do so by making such sweeping changes that previously loyal collectors like myself say, "These aren't my comic book universes any more?"
That having been said, the only Archie title I'm interested in buying and reading right now is Betty And Veronica, mostly because I love the art and I find the story to be entertaining. I know that it doesn't really fit in with current Archie continuity, but for me that's not a problem because the Archie comics I grew up with and love the most have no continuity.
However, I saw no reason for Archie the corporation to say goodbye to the classic artists. Mr. Ruiz has shown that he is more than capable of drawing the characters in any style desired. I have many stories by him in my collection.
Anyway, that's my two cents.
Title: Re: Some questions about Adam Hughes' BETTY & VERONICA
Post by: PTF on December 03, 2016, 04:58:16 PM
Maybe I'm talking crazy...but instead of creating new characters...why not try and make Chuck and Nancy interesting? I mean, back in the day, Chuck was pretty great as this guy who had a bit of a chip on his shoulder. Problem became the art angle took over and it became "Chuck is drawing something" and that was it for him. I think in one of the old Archie titles he was Archie's sidekick because I have digests with the two and they were actually pretty fun.

And as for Nancy...Nancy...

...

Fine. Toni Topaz might be better because of the hat. :)


And yeah, I don't get why you ditch the entire classic line. Why not bring back Pep Comics and have them star the classic characters and either bring in the classic artists or just do what a lot of companies are doing...just go on deviant art and find talent for cheap. :)

Title: Re: Some questions about Adam Hughes' BETTY & VERONICA
Post by: BettyReggie on December 03, 2016, 05:19:20 PM
And I'm surprised that Archie isn't forced to be on Veronica's side of the battle. She would never let Archie near Betty. He is also at her bec & call.   I wish that Harper was in the storyline.
Title: Re: Some questions about Adam Hughes' BETTY & VERONICA
Post by: DeCarlo Rules on December 03, 2016, 05:24:43 PM
Quote from: PTF on December 03, 2016, 04:58:16 PM
Maybe I'm talking crazy...but instead of creating new characters...why not try and make Chuck and Nancy interesting? I mean, back in the day, Chuck was pretty great as this guy who had a bit of a chip on his shoulder. Problem became the art angle took over and it became "Chuck is drawing something" and that was it for him. I think in one of the old Archie titles he was Archie's sidekick because I have digests with the two and they were actually pretty fun.

And as for Nancy...Nancy...

...

Fine. Toni Topaz might be better because of the hat. :)

And yeah, I don't get why you ditch the entire classic line. Why not bring back Pep Comics and have them star the classic characters and either bring in the classic artists or just do what a lot of companies are doing...just go on deviant art and find talent for cheap. :)

Totally disagree about Chuck. He's way more interesting as "aspiring young comic artist Chuck" than he ever was a "sports guy (whose father is also the coach) Chuck". And before that, nobody at Archie Comics knew WHO the heck Chuck was, apart from "oh yeah, isn't he the black guy?" So some stories he's "hypochondriac Chuck", or "superstitious Chuck", or "nervous around girls Chuck", or any number of character traits that come and go. For a few stories there, he's almost treated as "the black Archie" (a.k.a "Klutz Chuck"). Then slowly he becomes "the ARCHIE AT RIVERDALE HIGH Chuck" (a.k.a. "No Way Are We Going to Put the Black Guy's Name in the Title of the Comic"), which is sort of like the G.I. Joe Adventure Team version of the Hardy Boys, starring Archie & Chuck. Then for a while, it's all stories about "Chuck just can't seem to do anything right when it comes to pleasing his girlfriend Nancy". Yeeesh. Talk about sloppy characterization. Nobody had a clue.

YES.  What about Nancy?  Today I read a reprint in ARCHIE JUMBO DIGEST that had a Christmas party story where Archie kisses Valerie underneath the mistletoe. Thing is, this story was written by Mike Pellowski, and he stopped writing Archie stories before the whole Dan Parent Archie/Valerie romance thing came into play. And the way the story was drawn, "Valerie" sure looked like Nancy. And Josie and Melody weren't at this party, either. So I suspect the word balloons had been re-lettered (nothing that looked obvious, though) to replace "Nancy" with "Valerie". Why, I couldn't say.

But the whole point is, most of the time you wouldn't be able to tell Nancy and Valerie apart, unless Nancy is hanging around with Chuck, or Valerie is hanging around with the Pussycats. They both have the same upturned "inverted-U" nose, and neither one of them ever had any consistent hairstyle to identify them. Nor did either of them have any personality traits distinctive enough to tell them apart (before Val became part of the whole Betty/Veronica/Cheryl five-way love-fest with Archie).

There already is a Pep comics. PEP DIGITAL, the digital-exclusive reprint collections. I'm surprised they didn't just retire the word "Pep", though, because let's face it, that's about as 21st century as "Boola-Boola Comics" or "Woo-Woo!" or "23 Skidoo". No kid today is going to buy a floppy comic book called "Pep Comics". But forget about the kids already, because you need to sell floppy comics to 20-to-40 year-olds that make up the mainstream comic shop consumer demographic.
Title: Re: Some questions about Adam Hughes' BETTY & VERONICA
Post by: Mr.Lodge on February 05, 2017, 02:49:17 PM
Is this still being published or has it gone quietly into that long goodnight?  ;D
Title: Re: Some questions about Adam Hughes' BETTY & VERONICA
Post by: Alexandra Cabot on February 05, 2017, 05:20:49 PM
Quote from: Mr.Lodge on February 05, 2017, 02:49:17 PM
Is this still being published or has it gone quietly into that long goodnight?  ;D

That's the charm of Archie Comics these days.  You don't know what's canceled because everything is delayed when it's not canceled.  It's fun if you like mysteries.   ;D
Title: Re: Some questions about Adam Hughes' BETTY & VERONICA
Post by: PTF on February 05, 2017, 10:18:22 PM
Well, it's Hughes and Archie Comics schedule. So it's going to be awhile before the next issue comes out. Still think it will come out before the next Afterlife though. :)
Title: Re: Some questions about Adam Hughes' BETTY & VERONICA
Post by: Jabroniville on November 26, 2022, 02:25:34 AM
Quote from: Fernando Ruiz on November 28, 2016, 01:08:59 AM
Quote from: SAGG on November 25, 2016, 08:12:00 PMI've got two: What if ACP wanted to change the direction of Archie like they have now, but wanted to keep you Classic artists? Would you have any trouble doing what they wanted, or would you have felt uncomfortable with the change? What if they wanted you to change your artwork as well to match the change in the story retro-wise, something more "serious-looking"?  :coolsmiley:


  If Archie had opted to have the classic artists draw the reboot books, I would draw it just as I would any other job. I'd already modified my approach to the characters somewhat while I was drawing the Life With Archie magazine series. If ACP had wanted the looks of the characters modernized, I certainly, as a professional, would have no problem doing that. As a fan, of course, my preference would be for the characters to remain in their classic style! I have always worked very hard to remain a diverse artists capable of working in many styles, genres, and tones. Drawing a more serious or mature Archie simply would have been just another job for me.


At New York Comic con this year, I had my very first conversation with Archie president Mike Pellerito since my "departure" from Archie Comics. To his credit, the conversation came about at his suggestion and as an attempt to repair the relationship between Archie Comics and myself. (Rest assured nothing came of this.) In the course of this exchange, I'd suggestion that one of the reasons why my "dismissal" had been unnecessary was because I easily could've drawn any one of the reboot titles. He responded very quickly with, "It wouldn't have sold."


I have no illusions that a reboot title drawn by myself would've sold in the same numbers as the Fiona Staples drawn issues, but we would have seen a boost in sales simply from the reboot alone. We also would have seen that boost be far more sustainable since I would have stayed with the title far longer than Staples' three issues. (The book has been bleeding readers since she left!) Plus, with a more moderate modification, they would've had material that could more seamlessly be used in the digests further on down the line.


Unfortunately, Pellerito was fixated on using (however temporarily) "big names" and trying to use the "news" of a total stylistic overhaul both in terms of story and art to further bolster the "splash" they were looking to make. Admittedly, they did make a bit of a splash, but the ripples of that splash are very evidently waning now.


I may have to tell the wonderful, heart-warming story about how us "classic guys" first learned of the reboot. It's a beautiful story that is very pertinent to the Holiday season, but its a story for another time...



I'd love to hear this story about the "classic guys" learning that... well, the comics were rebranding without them. Especially now that the reboot has entirely fizzled out.