Quote from: DeCarlo Rules on November 25, 2016, 12:37:50 AM

His original contract was for three issues.

I'd heard four.

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?"

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.

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

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.

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

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"? 

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.

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.

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

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"? 

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:

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.

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.

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"? 

   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...

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.

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.

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"? 

   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....

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.

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.

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.