It's been said over and over - Erica Henderson is a terrible artist. For the record, I really don't like her style at all, but I don't think it's terrible. I hate to say this, but it's not really any worse than some of Stan G's later work. Erica's just not a good fit for Archie. She should be working on some underground independent title without any established history.
Anyhow, to my point, the writing on Jughead reminds me a lot of classic Jughead. Classic Jughead found himself in a lot of surreal fantasy situations, as he is now. Chip's take on the character is basically rooted in tradition, and I imagine if Rex Lindsey or Frenando Ruiz was illustrating this title instead of Erica, people would like it a lot.
On the other hand, I find Archie's book moving along way too slowly. I don't really find the characters are being developed much. Can you imagine people reading this without any previous knowledge of Archie whatsoever? We're seven isues in (about 150 pages!) and what's happened? Not much. It's not fun or funny. It's not entertaining. The art is prettier than that on Jughead, but to me it's just the lesser of two evils.
Of course, this is all personal opinion. I'm not right or wrong, it's just my take on things. Would anyone else care to share their take on things?
I like her work on Jughead and Squirrel Girl, but I can understand why others don't.
And I'm a huge fan of what Chip's doing with the storytelling on this book. I agree 100% with your assessment of what makes this book's storytelling well down.
I certainly have liked the art better in the Archie reboot to date over the Jughead book. Both of the series haven't been all that great for me so far. I agree with HarryLuceyfan that the Jughead reboot has been going back to some of it's earlier roots with the dream sequences and fantasy stuff which is fine, but I would like to see some more of the sillier thing that Jughead does. We haven't see Ethel chase him around or even a glimpse of Trula his arch nemesis which in the classic stories made for some of the best stuff in my opinion. Those stories need to be introduced.
As for the Archie story it certainly is not as funny as the classic story lines, but I was kind of expecting that since it seems like ACP is trying to focus this reboot on a different age demographic and maybe leaning towards a different story. I also agree it is moving way too slow.
Quote from: JonInIowaCity on April 08, 2016, 11:30:46 AM
I like her work on Jughead and Squirrel Girl, but I can understand why others don't.
Erica's work is, for the lack of a better word, ugly. We all know that the girls of Archie have always been stereotypically attractive. It's probably drawn in a lot of readers in the past. I believe that Erica's artwork would be more appreciated on something like Afterlife With Archie- ugly art reflecting an ugly world.
I used to be a huge Adam Hughes fan when he first started out at DC. I thought at the time he was an amazing pin-up girl artist. I'm only somewhat interested in seeing what he'll be doing on Betty and Veronica.
Quote from: HarryLuceyFan on April 08, 2016, 11:23:41 AM
Anyhow, to my point, the writing on Jughead reminds me a lot of classic Jughead. Classic Jughead found himself in a lot of surreal fantasy situations, as he is now. Chip's take on the character is basically rooted in tradition, and I imagine if Rex Lindsey or Frenando Ruiz was illustrating this title instead of Erica, people would like it a lot.
On the other hand, I find Archie's book moving along way too slowly. I don't really find the characters are being developed much. Can you imagine people reading this without any previous knowledge of Archie whatsoever? We're seven isues in (about 150 pages!) and what's happened? Not much. It's not fun or funny. It's not entertaining. The art is prettier than that on Jughead, but to me it's just the lesser of two evils.
Well, I'm glad someone besides me recognized this. Took the words right outta my mouth.
Quote from: HarryLuceyFan on April 08, 2016, 01:20:52 PM
I used to be a huge Adam Hughes fan when he first started out at DC. I thought at the time he was an amazing pin-up girl artist. I'm only somewhat interested in seeing what he'll be doing on Betty and Veronica.
I'm still an Adam Hughes fan... just not for B&V. Nail on the head, HLF, nail on the head.
Quote from: DeCarlo Rules on April 08, 2016, 02:05:25 PM
Quote from: HarryLuceyFan on April 08, 2016, 01:20:52 PM
I used to be a huge Adam Hughes fan when he first started out at DC. I thought at the time he was an amazing pin-up girl artist. I'm only somewhat interested in seeing what he'll be doing on Betty and Veronica.
I'm still an Adam Hughes fan... just not for B&V. Nail on the head, HLF, nail on the head.
I honestly have to say out of the rebooted series Betty and Veronica is the one I am most looking forward to. Now does that mean I'll be waiting in line for issue #1 in a midnight release at the comic store(if they had such a thing).......NO. I have enjoyed Adam Hughes representation in the past of both Betty and Veronica and I am kind of intrigued to see where he is going to go with it in this new series. I also want to see how he is as a writer because prior to this I had no idea he was a writer.
I talk to Adam through Twitter, he is cool. He says the border picture on his page maybe the cover for Betty & Veronica #1. I really hope they 22 covers like the Archie reboot. They will because those girls are important.
Quote from: BettyReggie on April 08, 2016, 05:29:35 PM
I talk to Adam through Twitter, he is cool. He says the border picture on his page maybe the cover for Betty & Veronica #1. I really hope they 22 covers like the Archie reboot. They will because those girls are important.
They will definitely have several variant covers for the Betty and Veronica #1 that is for usre. I think it will be more like what they did with the Jughead #1 reboot though.
I'm curious to see Adam Hughes' interpretations of Jughead and Archie...
Quote from: HarryLuceyFan on April 08, 2016, 09:36:07 PM
I'm curious to see Adam Hughes' interpretations of Jughead and Archie...
That should be interesting. We know he draws females very well, but males we don't have much to go by. I also really want to know what his writing style is like. Does anyone know of anything that he has wrote comic book wise in the past?
Hughes' Betty and Henderson's Betty will NEVER be identified as the same character in side-by-side comparisons. This is a prediction I feel pretty confident about :)
Erica Henderson
(https://retconpunchdotcom.files.wordpress.com/2016/01/betty.jpg?w=593)
Adam Hughes
(https://www.archiefans.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcdn3-www.craveonline.com%2Fassets%2Fuploads%2F2015%2F05%2FBetty-Cooper.jpg&hash=164e467e4466a38644811e70bee065025e6a0e3f)
Difference between a drag queen and a real woman ::)
Just the Adam Hughes Eyes, Nose, and hair are so superior to what Erica Henderson did to Betty. And that is just the obvious eye sores.
Henderson draws in a style abandoned by artists in the middle ages (still used by children who have advanced beyond stick figures but with no training or observational skills) ... and she can't seem to find where on the head the face goes .... a little basic anatomy would do wonders ...
(https://retconpunchdotcom.files.wordpress.com/2016/01/betty.jpg)(https://www.archiefans.com/all-about-archie/why-i-prefer-the-new-jughead-title-over-the-new-archie-title/?action=dlattach;attach=68;image)(https://www.archiefans.com/all-about-archie/why-i-prefer-the-new-jughead-title-over-the-new-archie-title/?action=dlattach;attach=64;image)
I do like both series a lot but I find myself wanted to reread the Jughead series more often mostly because of the fun adventures that are going on in the story so far. It really makes for a fun read.
I hadn't read the last couple of issues of the Archie reboot but I did today and sorry but I have gone in one year from loving this reboot to almost total apathy. Part of that is resentment over classic Archie being ditched but most of it is just the aimlessness of the "plot" which doesn't work in the realistic style they're using. I mean where is this going? I'll probably wait to get the tpb, if they put out another volume, instead of buying any more individual issues, that way if it gets even more boring I can at least give it away to someone.
I found it funny that Archie's father worked for Mr. Lodge. I didn't think they knew each. Mr. Lodge is a business man but I no idea what Fred Andrews does. I always thought he worked in a office.
Well, rich people's companies have offices too — and Mr.Lodge pretty much made himself the town's biggest employer when he moved there, so it's not surprising (though I'm pretty sure he didn't in the classic Archie — just general downtown office work there, but they did know each other due to their kids relationship) ...
Quote from: daren on May 14, 2016, 08:57:46 PM
I hadn't read the last couple of issues of the Archie reboot but I did today and sorry but I have gone in one year from loving this reboot to almost total apathy. Part of that is resentment over classic Archie being ditched but most of it is just the aimlessness of the "plot" which doesn't work in the realistic style they're using. I mean where is this going? I'll probably wait to get the tpb, if they put out another volume, instead of buying any more individual issues, that way if it gets even more boring I can at least give it away to someone.
Novelty beginning to wear off already. Jonathan's hesitancy about Archie #8 on the Riverdale Podcast seemed a little telling to me, knowing what an enthusiastic booster of just about everything Archie he is. On the usual scale of things for
him, "slight reservations" on his part almost seem ominous.
The Archie reboot reminds me of all of the various times DC Comics has tried to revamp the Captain Marvel (SHAZAM!) family and Plastic Man. They still have the same names, costumes, and superpowers but in trying to contemporize them they're missing the intangible qualities that made those things popular in their prime.
I think you could probably read Archie #1 and #8 (and maybe the one where they explain the lipstick incident) and you'd be all caught up with it plot wise.
Quote from: irishmoxie on May 15, 2016, 04:35:22 PM
I think you could probably read Archie #1 and #8 (and maybe the one where they explain the lipstick incident) and you'd be all caught up with it plot wise.
And accidentally demolishing the mansion, and Mr. Lodge finding out who did it?
From the sounds of it, the classic Archie would have wrapped up the all the same plot points in 2 or 3 shorts of 6 pages or so.
Quote from: DeCarlo Rules on May 15, 2016, 01:23:39 AM
Quote from: daren on May 14, 2016, 08:57:46 PM
I hadn't read the last couple of issues of the Archie reboot but I did today and sorry but I have gone in one year from loving this reboot to almost total apathy. Part of that is resentment over classic Archie being ditched but most of it is just the aimlessness of the "plot" which doesn't work in the realistic style they're using. I mean where is this going? I'll probably wait to get the tpb, if they put out another volume, instead of buying any more individual issues, that way if it gets even more boring I can at least give it away to someone.
Novelty beginning to wear off already. Jonathan's hesitancy about Archie #8 on the Riverdale Podcast seemed a little telling to me, knowing what an enthusiastic booster of just about everything Archie he is. On the usual scale of things for him, "slight reservations" on his part almost seem ominous.
Not so much the novelty wearing off (though, it helped) as the series not living up to the promise of the first couple of issues. It seemed like big things would happen with the Lodge corporation moving in and Archie and his friends trying to get jobs working for them, I thought they would all become more and more involved with that. There should be some exciting development like that to carry the action through and the main five need something that brings them together, they're more interesting as a unit. Instead the stories are just rambling on from one character to another and I find myself not caring about anyone very much...and some of the characterization from the classic stories doesn't work. It's okay for classic Archie to be accident prone without showing that he's, you know, on meds or getting some other professional help, because it's not done realistically. This comic IS realistic and he and his parents just come across as so irresponsible for not reining him in. :P
Quote
The Archie reboot reminds me of all of the various times DC Comics has tried to revamp the Captain Marvel (SHAZAM!) family and Plastic Man. They still have the same names, costumes, and superpowers but in trying to contemporize them they're missing the intangible qualities that made those things popular in their prime.
Yes probably.
Quote from: daren on May 16, 2016, 03:38:25 AM
Not so much the novelty wearing off (though, it helped) as the series not living up to the promise of the first couple of issues. It seemed like big things would happen with the Lodge corporation moving in and Archie and his friends trying to get jobs working for them, I thought they would all become more and more involved with that. There should be some exciting development like that to carry the action through and the main five need something that brings them together, they're more interesting as a unit. Instead the stories are just rambling on from one character to another and I find myself not caring about anyone very much...and some of the characterization from the classic stories doesn't work. It's okay for classic Archie to be accident prone without showing that he's, you know, on meds or getting some other professional help, because it's not done realistically. This comic IS realistic and he and his parents just come across as so irresponsible for not reining him in. :P
Call it what you will. Some of the initial bloom is off the rose as people seem to be beginning to take a closer critical evaluation of the reboot and various details about how the individual aspects of art and story (especially) relate to the whole. Your criticisms being different than mine (or others') notwithstanding. I think there was just a groundswell of initial enthusiasm that carried a lot of readers along that blinded them to some details about exactly how things were working (or not, as may be the case) with the reboot. The "decompressed storytelling" certainly delayed that assessment on a lot of readers' parts.
Good observations.
Quote from: BettyReggie on May 14, 2016, 09:03:41 PM
I found it funny that Archie's father worked for Mr. Lodge. I didn't think they knew each. Mr. Lodge is a business man but I no idea what Fred Andrews does. I always thought he worked in a office.
He worked for Mr. Lodge in the radio series way, way back in the day.
Quote from: DeCarlo Rules on May 16, 2016, 04:13:01 AM
Quote from: daren on May 16, 2016, 03:38:25 AM
Not so much the novelty wearing off (though, it helped) as the series not living up to the promise of the first couple of issues. It seemed like big things would happen with the Lodge corporation moving in and Archie and his friends trying to get jobs working for them, I thought they would all become more and more involved with that. There should be some exciting development like that to carry the action through and the main five need something that brings them together, they're more interesting as a unit. Instead the stories are just rambling on from one character to another and I find myself not caring about anyone very much...and some of the characterization from the classic stories doesn't work. It's okay for classic Archie to be accident prone without showing that he's, you know, on meds or getting some other professional help, because it's not done realistically. This comic IS realistic and he and his parents just come across as so irresponsible for not reining him in. :P
Call it what you will. Some of the initial bloom is off the rose as people seem to be beginning to take a closer critical evaluation of the reboot and various details about how the individual aspects of art and story (especially) relate to the whole. Your criticisms being different than mine (or others') notwithstanding. I think there was just a groundswell of initial enthusiasm that carried a lot of readers along that blinded them to some details about exactly how things were working (or not, as may be the case) with the reboot. The "decompressed storytelling" certainly delayed that assessment on a lot of readers' parts.
Good observations.
I'm still hoping a little that Mark Waid can salvage, but I doubt it. There was an article says he doesn't have an overall plan for this series, it shows.
Other characterizations that don't work: spoiled screaming Veronica who was sometimes awesome in the classic stories that way but comes across like she is almost mentally disabled here without explaining it, she's had her moments now and then but thats probably as much me wanting to like her as her being likable. Obnoxious social climbing Mr. Mantle is a terrible idea, if they wanted to make one of the Mantles a bad parent or jerk why not Mrs. Mantle? We know less about her and for ONCE they could have one of the mothers be less nice than the fathers. Mr. Lodge isn't half as complex as he was in the classic stories. Of course Waid could be lulling us into taking their villainy for granted planning to spring surprise character revelations for them later but let's face it, this series probably isn't going to last long enough for that, their creepness is so entrenched now.
Quote from: daren on May 16, 2016, 04:04:12 PM
Quote from: DeCarlo Rules on May 16, 2016, 04:13:01 AM
Quote from: daren on May 16, 2016, 03:38:25 AM
Not so much the novelty wearing off (though, it helped) as the series not living up to the promise of the first couple of issues. It seemed like big things would happen with the Lodge corporation moving in and Archie and his friends trying to get jobs working for them, I thought they would all become more and more involved with that. There should be some exciting development like that to carry the action through and the main five need something that brings them together, they're more interesting as a unit. Instead the stories are just rambling on from one character to another and I find myself not caring about anyone very much...and some of the characterization from the classic stories doesn't work. It's okay for classic Archie to be accident prone without showing that he's, you know, on meds or getting some other professional help, because it's not done realistically. This comic IS realistic and he and his parents just come across as so irresponsible for not reining him in. :P
Call it what you will. Some of the initial bloom is off the rose as people seem to be beginning to take a closer critical evaluation of the reboot and various details about how the individual aspects of art and story (especially) relate to the whole. Your criticisms being different than mine (or others') notwithstanding. I think there was just a groundswell of initial enthusiasm that carried a lot of readers along that blinded them to some details about exactly how things were working (or not, as may be the case) with the reboot. The "decompressed storytelling" certainly delayed that assessment on a lot of readers' parts.
Good observations.
I'm still hoping a little that Mark Waid can salvage, but I doubt it. There was an article says he doesn't have an overall plan for this series, it shows.
Other characterizations that don't work: spoiled screaming Veronica who was sometimes awesome in the classic stories that way but comes across like she is almost mentally disabled here without explaining it, she's had her moments now and then but thats probably as much me wanting to like her as her being likable. Obnoxious social climbing Mr. Mantle is a terrible idea, if they wanted to make one of the Mantles a bad parent or jerk why not Mrs. Mantle? We know less about her and for ONCE they could have one of the mothers be less nice than the fathers. Mr. Lodge isn't half as complex as he was in the classic stories. Of course Waid could be lulling us into taking their villainy for granted planning to spring surprise character revelations for them later but let's face it, this series probably isn't going to last long enough for that, their creepness is so entrenched now.
The idea of filling in some background detail on the parents is a good one in general, as that's an area where the classic stories are famously vague (and changeable to suit whatever circumstances a specific story required). What, exactly, IS it that Fred Andrews, Hal Cooper, and Forsythe Jones (a.k.a. Jonesy) do for a living, anyway? I mean, of ALL the parents in the classic stories, only ONE has a very
specific occupation/career -- Ricky Mantle, newspaper publisher. It's a detail of those other characters that hardly ever comes into play except in the vaguest sort of way. Fred Andrews... doesn't he work in an office or something? Well, it's not too specific, but I guess it eliminates a lot of career possibilities. But what does he DO in that office every day, and what sort of business does he work for? It's never really gone into beyond some stories where something non-specific like "Andrews, where are those reports?! I need them TODAY!!" comes up in the plot. Mr. Lodge is "a businessman" and a millionaire, but what is the nature of his business, and how did he make his fortune? The latter is never really answered in classic stories, and the former is changeable to suit whatever type of business is relevant to the plot of a specific story. In effect, Lodge owns any and every type of business enterprise imaginable, without limits, and businesses that he is involved in unsuspected to the general reader of Archie Comics can show up at any time that it makes an interesting story connection. Since we don't know what type of business office Fred Andrews works in, or what he really does there, why NOT say that the office he works for is one of Mr. Lodge's companies? It's an interesting wrinkle.
One thing that bugs me a little is that whenever there's some new take on ARCHIE, Mr. Lodge gets a crap deal as some kind of sinister manipulative power-monger, or at the very least, his motives and character are suspect and questionable. It's happened to one degree or another in To Riverdale and Back Again, The Married Life, and now the reboot. That's the complete reverse of classic Archie, in which Hiram Lodge is almost uniformly shown to be the type of millionaire business magnate who is smart but fair, honest and of unimpeachable character. He's a good father, gives back to the community, helps out the younger generation (even if he sometimes takes a dim view of some of them as individuals). Often the classic stories show some situation in which the kids point out some way his business is negatively impacting the community, and he always takes corrective action to resolve the problem once he's made aware of it, because he cares. He's not one of those cold unfeeling types who feels himself above everyone, despite the obvious gap in wealth. He's never shown as motivated by pure greed or underhanded in his dealings with anyone.
Most of the few stories that show Mr. Mantle seem to portray him as a journalist of integrity, as well as good character. It's a bit facile to turn him into a sly schemer in order to try to draw some parallels with his son's many character faults.
I just can't wait for Derek Charm his art looks great. I think he is big Reggie fan.
Quote from: DeCarlo Rules on May 16, 2016, 05:01:30 PM
Quote from: daren on May 16, 2016, 04:04:12 PM
Quote from: DeCarlo Rules on May 16, 2016, 04:13:01 AM
Quote from: daren on May 16, 2016, 03:38:25 AM
Not so much the novelty wearing off (though, it helped) as the series not living up to the promise of the first couple of issues. It seemed like big things would happen with the Lodge corporation moving in and Archie and his friends trying to get jobs working for them, I thought they would all become more and more involved with that. There should be some exciting development like that to carry the action through and the main five need something that brings them together, they're more interesting as a unit. Instead the stories are just rambling on from one character to another and I find myself not caring about anyone very much...and some of the characterization from the classic stories doesn't work. It's okay for classic Archie to be accident prone without showing that he's, you know, on meds or getting some other professional help, because it's not done realistically. This comic IS realistic and he and his parents just come across as so irresponsible for not reining him in. :P
Call it what you will. Some of the initial bloom is off the rose as people seem to be beginning to take a closer critical evaluation of the reboot and various details about how the individual aspects of art and story (especially) relate to the whole. Your criticisms being different than mine (or others') notwithstanding. I think there was just a groundswell of initial enthusiasm that carried a lot of readers along that blinded them to some details about exactly how things were working (or not, as may be the case) with the reboot. The "decompressed storytelling" certainly delayed that assessment on a lot of readers' parts.
Good observations.
I'm still hoping a little that Mark Waid can salvage, but I doubt it. There was an article says he doesn't have an overall plan for this series, it shows.
Other characterizations that don't work: spoiled screaming Veronica who was sometimes awesome in the classic stories that way but comes across like she is almost mentally disabled here without explaining it, she's had her moments now and then but thats probably as much me wanting to like her as her being likable. Obnoxious social climbing Mr. Mantle is a terrible idea, if they wanted to make one of the Mantles a bad parent or jerk why not Mrs. Mantle? We know less about her and for ONCE they could have one of the mothers be less nice than the fathers. Mr. Lodge isn't half as complex as he was in the classic stories. Of course Waid could be lulling us into taking their villainy for granted planning to spring surprise character revelations for them later but let's face it, this series probably isn't going to last long enough for that, their creepness is so entrenched now.
The idea of filling in some background detail on the parents is a good one in general, as that's an area where the classic stories are famously vague (and changeable to suit whatever circumstances a specific story required). What, exactly, IS it that Fred Andrews, Hal Cooper, and Forsythe Jones (a.k.a. Jonesy) do for a living, anyway? I mean, of ALL the parents in the classic stories, only ONE has a very specific occupation/career -- Ricky Mantle, newspaper publisher. It's a detail of those other characters that hardly ever comes into play except in the vaguest sort of way. Fred Andrews... doesn't he work in an office or something? Well, it's not too specific, but I guess it eliminates a lot of career possibilities. But what does he DO in that office every day, and what sort of business does he work for? It's never really gone into beyond some stories where something non-specific like "Andrews, where are those reports?! I need them TODAY!!" comes up in the plot. Mr. Lodge is "a businessman" and a millionaire, but what is the nature of his business, and how did he make his fortune? The latter is never really answered in classic stories, and the former is changeable to suit whatever type of business is relevant to the plot of a specific story. In effect, Lodge owns any and every type of business enterprise imaginable, without limits, and businesses that he is involved in unsuspected to the general reader of Archie Comics can show up at any time that it makes an interesting story connection. Since we don't know what type of business office Fred Andrews works in, or what he really does there, why NOT say that the office he works for is one of Mr. Lodge's companies? It's an interesting wrinkle.
Well Mr. Mantle and Coach Clayton, maybe you just meant the main five though. Yeah in the reboot why not have Mr. Andrews work for Mr. Lodge, although like invisifan said it wouldnt fit classic Archie.
Quote
One thing that bugs me a little is that whenever there's some new take on ARCHIE, Mr. Lodge gets a crap deal as some kind of sinister manipulative power-monger, or at the very least, his motives and character are suspect and questionable. It's happened to one degree or another in To Riverdale and Back Again, The Married Life, and now the reboot. That's the complete reverse of classic Archie, in which Hiram Lodge is almost uniformly shown to be the type of millionaire business magnate who is smart but fair, honest and of unimpeachable character. He's a good father, gives back to the community, helps out the younger generation (even if he sometimes takes a dim view of some of them as individuals). Often the classic stories show some situation in which the kids point out some way his business is negatively impacting the community, and he always takes corrective action to resolve the problem once he's made aware of it, because he cares. He's not one of those cold unfeeling types who feels himself above everyone, despite the obvious gap in wealth. He's never shown as motivated by pure greed or underhanded in his dealings with anyone.
There's also Afterlife, and the new tv show where he'll be in prison. He was the villain in the new look book "My Father's Betrayal" too. I think he has more flaws than you said but yeah, he's much more good than bad, a long way from how all those recent titles and live action tv shows make him. :P
Quote
Most of the few stories that show Mr. Mantle seem to portray him as a journalist of integrity, as well as good character. It's a bit facile to turn him into a sly schemer in order to try to draw some parallels with his son's many character faults.
Yeah it's not believable. If they wanted to give him hidden faults under his usual self that would work but turning him into a loud caricature doesn't make sense.