• Welcome to Archie Comics Fan Forum. Please login or sign up.
 
May 19, 2019, 11:09:42 pm

News:

We're back! Unfortunately all data was lost. Please re-register to continue posting!


collapse

Random Image

LonelyAtTheTop5&6
LonelyAtTheTop5&6
Posted by: SAGG
Posted in album: SAGG

Search


Recent Topics

Re: Prince Harry and Meghan's Baby's Name... by DeCarlo Rules
[May 17, 2019, 06:49:55 pm]


Re: What comics have you been reading? by rusty
[May 15, 2019, 07:49:11 pm]


Re: Riverdale Reviewed by Tuxedo Mark
[May 14, 2019, 10:47:34 am]


Re: Scarlet is Back in an All New Story: "FLOWER FEET!" by Captain Jetpack
[May 13, 2019, 07:19:23 am]


Archie & Me in Lunch Crunch by PTF
[April 28, 2019, 12:58:45 pm]


Re: Howdy! by Captain Jetpack
[April 25, 2019, 07:18:17 am]


Re: ARCHIE COMICS FOR JULY 2019 by Fernando Ruiz
[April 25, 2019, 12:50:45 am]


Re: Jugheads new boots by Good Ole Samm
[April 18, 2019, 08:21:21 pm]


Re: Continuities that Riverdale has surpassed by Tuxedo Mark
[April 18, 2019, 04:18:10 pm]

Shoutbox

  • Tuxedo Mark: Totally awesome that Cheryl came to Betty's rescue.
    May 16, 2019, 11:20:40 am
  • Tuxedo Mark: I had to wait until this morning to watch it.
    May 16, 2019, 11:20:06 am
  • archiecomicscollector: Did you watch Riverdale's season finale tonight? Season 4 is expected to air in October.
    May 15, 2019, 10:06:41 pm
  • Tuxedo Mark: My review of "The Fears of a Clown" from Archie & Friends, No. 98: [link]
    May 14, 2019, 10:48:15 am
  • Tuxedo Mark: And a collage: [link]
    May 09, 2019, 08:41:23 am
  • Tuxedo Mark: Official pic: [link]
    May 09, 2019, 08:36:13 am
  • Tuxedo Mark: Katy Keene ordered to series! Congrats! :)
    May 09, 2019, 08:29:32 am
  • Tuxedo Mark: Internet and phone were knocked out for a few days. Just came back up.
    May 08, 2019, 11:57:36 am
  • Tuxedo Mark: My review of "Lord of the Games" from Archie DD #297: [link]
    May 04, 2019, 08:50:04 pm
  • Tuxedo Mark: My review of "Double Date" from World of Archie Jumbo Comics Digest #88: [link]
    April 28, 2019, 01:02:44 pm
  • Oldiesmann: Haven't had a chance to look into that yet, but we haven't lost anything as there are still posts here from well before April 15th. I'll try to look into it further later this week and see if I can figure out what the issue is.
    April 22, 2019, 01:04:01 am
  • Tuxedo Mark: My review of "Spring" from Betty and Veronica, No. 4: [link]
    April 21, 2019, 04:09:18 pm
  • DeCarlo Rules: ... and now there are four topics listed over in Recent Topics. Maybe somehow we just lost everything less recent than April 15, which is the oldest new post to the Recent Topics listed.
    April 19, 2019, 01:47:10 am
  • DeCarlo Rules: Last time I looked at Recent Topics it was only two showing, but now it's three. Well, if that trend continues, I guess the problem will eventually fix itself.
    April 18, 2019, 02:23:15 pm
  • Oldiesmann: I'm not sure what's going on with the most recent topics thing. I'll look into that when I get a chance
    April 16, 2019, 10:50:38 pm
  • Tuxedo Mark: My review of "Taking a Tumble" from B&V #263: [link]
    April 15, 2019, 02:52:06 pm
  • Tuxedo Mark: Only the two mosr recent topics show up in the sidebar.
    April 15, 2019, 02:50:22 pm
  • DeCarlo Rules: Now if you could only get some ### pattern overlaid on the orange, it would be perfect!  ;D
    April 15, 2019, 12:40:25 am
  • rusty: I like the orange more than the blue
    April 13, 2019, 11:14:47 pm
  • Oldiesmann: New theme installed. let me know what you think :)
    April 13, 2019, 01:37:06 pm

What comics have you been reading?

Started by irishmoxie, March 30, 2016, 10:49:35 pm

Previous topic - Next topic

SAGG

What I can't understand is why Marvel can't get Fantastic Four going movie-wise, the same for Silver Surfer. They seem to get the other Marvel characters well...  ???

DeCarlo Rules

September 04, 2017, 06:13:47 am #1261 Last Edit: September 04, 2017, 07:06:15 am by DeCarlo Rules
Quote from: SAGG on September 04, 2017, 04:24:30 am
What I can't understand is why Marvel can't get Fantastic Four going movie-wise, the same for Silver Surfer. They seem to get the other Marvel characters well...  ???


Why? Because they don't have the movie rights. And by "they" I mean the Walt Disney Corporation, Marvel Comics' parent company. Those rights were licensed to Fox Studios (which made a couple or three FF films in the last couple of decades) prior to Disney having purchased Marvel Comics. And believe me, they would LOVE to have those rights back NOW that Disney's Marvel Studios movie franchises of the Avengers, Iron Man, Thor, Ant-Man, Guardians of the Galaxy etc. are raking in megabucks for the Walt Disney Corporation. They're more than a little irked by the fact that they don't have those film rights. So much so, that there was a corporate directive issued "from upstairs" that directed Marvel Comics' editors to stop publishing any Fantastic Four comic books (except reprint collections), and to keep all the associated FF characters in low-profile storylines, because the parent corporation viewed that as a form of advertising a rival movie studio's product.  And that's the naked truth.

You know that Spider-Man movie that just came out a month or so back subtitled "Homecoming"? Do you know WHY it was called "Homecoming"?? Because the Walt Disney Company's Marvel Studios division just got those film rights back from the previous licensee, the Sony Corporation, which had produced all the previous Spider-Man movies. Spider-Man came "home" to Marvel's parent company, the Walt Disney Corporation, after those film rights had been locked up for years by the Sony Corporation. And that's why it's the first Spider-Man movie that characters from The Avengers can appear in.

But it makes the situation of the FF film rights even more irksome to the Walt Disney Corporation, because it's not just Mr. Fantastic, the Invisible Woman, the Human Torch, and the Thing that they're missing out on profits from, and their main associated villains like Doctor Doom. It's all of the FF's "associated characters" as stipulated in a list specified by that film rights contract -- the Silver Surfer, Galactus, and probably dozens more. When Marvel was divvying up its universe of characters for film franchise rights, they parceled them out by lists of what "family" they thought this or that character belonged to -- usually whatever comic book in which that character had made his or her first appearance, or the comic book in which the character most frequently appeared. With the Fantastic Four comic book, the first 50 or so issues were co-created by Jack Kirby, and Kirby just couldn't help creating new characters and concepts every couple of issues... so the "associated character" list of the FF family franchise is probably a lot more extensive than that of Spider-Man, at least in terms of valuable concepts that might conceivably be spun off into their own films or TV shows, or who might show up as supporting characters or villains in one of Marvel Studios' other franchise films.

And what ABOUT Fox Studios, anyway? Why can't THEY make a good Fantastic Four movie? Funny you should ask. I recently talked to Neal Adams at a comic book convention, and the topic of Fox's FF movies somehow (I can't recall how now) came up. Adams said that after Fox had made the first FF film and it flopped, someone at the studios had called him for a meeting. They wanted to solicit his opinion on what kind of story would make a good FF movie, and he told them. "There's really only ONE Fantastic Four story that anyone's going to be excited about or care about -- GALACTUS. Galactus, and the Silver Surfer. That's the only story you should be thinking about making." So they did think about it, and what resulted was the second FF movie, where Galactus is something like a giant space cloud. Adams said when he saw that, he was convinced that Fox will never make a good FF movie, because even with the comic books in their hands, no one at that studio has got a clue about what made the Fantastic Four a great comic.

rusty

Sony actually still has the film rights for Spider-Man, but they are sharing them with Marvel as part of their deal, which is what allows Spider-Man to be in the Marvel cinematic universe.  The technicalities don't really mean much to the consumers/fans, but it is nice to see the two companies cooperating and the results - Spider-Man Homecoming and Spider-Mans appearance in Civil War - were pretty good.

DeCarlo Rules

Quote from: rusty on September 04, 2017, 08:29:31 am
Sony actually still has the film rights for Spider-Man, but they are sharing them with Marvel as part of their deal, which is what allows Spider-Man to be in the Marvel cinematic universe.  The technicalities don't really mean much to the consumers/fans, but it is nice to see the two companies cooperating and the results - Spider-Man Homecoming and Spider-Mans appearance in Civil War - were pretty good.


Okay, maybe I misunderstood what was going on there. So are you saying Sony produced the Spider-Man: Homecoming film, or Marvel Studios/Disney? And in either case, how does the other company make money off it, or is it some kind of profit-sharing percentage deal on paper?

BettyReggie

September 04, 2017, 10:19:02 am #1264 Last Edit: September 04, 2017, 04:42:35 pm by BettyReggie
I haven't read any in a while because I'm coloring a lot so today I will read.
I finished The Best Of Archie Comics 75 Years 75 Stories
And I also read these books for 12 minutes each
Archie 1000 Page Comics Celebration

rusty

Quote from: DeCarlo Rules on September 04, 2017, 09:19:01 am
Quote from: rusty on September 04, 2017, 08:29:31 am
Sony actually still has the film rights for Spider-Man, but they are sharing them with Marvel as part of their deal, which is what allows Spider-Man to be in the Marvel cinematic universe.  The technicalities don't really mean much to the consumers/fans, but it is nice to see the two companies cooperating and the results - Spider-Man Homecoming and Spider-Mans appearance in Civil War - were pretty good.


Okay, maybe I misunderstood what was going on there. So are you saying Sony produced the Spider-Man: Homecoming film, or Marvel Studios/Disney? And in either case, how does the other company make money off it, or is it some kind of profit-sharing percentage deal on paper?



My understanding is that Sony put up the money for the film and paid Marvel Studios a fee to produce the movie.  Sony distributed the movie and kept the profits while Marvel Studios gets to use the Spider-Man character in Avengers, Captain America and other movies that are owned by Marvel.  Sony retains the rights which is why they are exploring movies for Venom, Black Cat and others.

DeCarlo Rules

Quote from: rusty on September 04, 2017, 06:52:53 pm
Quote from: DeCarlo Rules on September 04, 2017, 09:19:01 am
Quote from: rusty on September 04, 2017, 08:29:31 am
Sony actually still has the film rights for Spider-Man, but they are sharing them with Marvel as part of their deal, which is what allows Spider-Man to be in the Marvel cinematic universe.  The technicalities don't really mean much to the consumers/fans, but it is nice to see the two companies cooperating and the results - Spider-Man Homecoming and Spider-Mans appearance in Civil War - were pretty good.


Okay, maybe I misunderstood what was going on there. So are you saying Sony produced the Spider-Man: Homecoming film, or Marvel Studios/Disney? And in either case, how does the other company make money off it, or is it some kind of profit-sharing percentage deal on paper?



My understanding is that Sony put up the money for the film and paid Marvel Studios a fee to produce the movie.  Sony distributed the movie and kept the profits while Marvel Studios gets to use the Spider-Man character in Avengers, Captain America and other movies that are owned by Marvel.  Sony retains the rights which is why they are exploring movies for Venom, Black Cat and others.


An interesting arrangement that would seem to benefit both companies. Seeing how Fox can't seem to figure out what to do to create a successful Fantastic Four movie franchise, perhaps they'll take a hint.

DeCarlo Rules

06-06-17:
JIMMYS BASTARDS #3
KINGSMAN RED DIAMOND #1
(of 6)
STAR WARS ADVENTURES #1
ASTRO CITY #47
DASTARDLY AND MUTTLEY #1
ONE PUNCH MAN GN VOL 12
THE BLOODY CARDINAL
(OGN) by Richard Sala
CAPTAIN HARLOCK SPACE PIRATE: DIMENSIONAL VOYAGE GN VOL 01
THE BLACK BEETLE: KARA BOCEK HC
by Francesco Francavilla

BettyReggie

I haven't read any in a while because I'm coloring a lot so today I will read.

BettyReggie

I read these books for 12 minutes each
The Best Of Archie Comics - Book #3
Archie 1000 Page Comics Bonanza
Archie 1000 Page Comics Blowout
Archie 1000 Page Comics Celebration
Archie's Pals & Gals Double Digest #1


BettyReggie

I took Archie #23- Thomas Pitilli's issue out of the comic frame so I just read it.

DeCarlo Rules

September 12, 2017, 12:38:10 am #1271 Last Edit: September 12, 2017, 01:45:09 am by DeCarlo Rules
I was hoping that maybe the latest BETTY & VERONICA DOUBLE DIGEST would come in the mail a few days early, but no such luck.  :(

So instead I pulled out an older 1000-Pager, ARCHIE 1000 PAGE COMICS CELEBRATION, and read that. I seem to recall that these things usually cut out out all the special character sections of the digest reprints, so I was actually kind of surprised to find that this one had a Josie and the Pussycats section reprinting both parts of "Music For the Masses", from ARCHIE & FRIENDS #48-49. That story and the 2-parter in the following two issues of A&F were the longest Josie stories (24 pages) since the 1960s, and still the longest ones to date.

...and then I had to laugh when I looked at this cover again. I mean, it's obviously a reprint of an older Dan DeCarlo gag from... who knows where.
But then someone decided to mess with the original drawing, so that the joke doesn't even make sense anymore. "What beach umbrella?", indeed? The real question here should be... "WHAT bikini???" since the girl sitting under the beach umbrella behind Archie ISN'T WEARING A BIKINI, but a one-piece swimsuit.

DeCarlo Rules

09/09 - 09/12:
JUSTICE INC: FACES OF JUSTICE #2 (of 4)
TWELVE-CENT ARCHIE
GWAR ORGASMAGEDDON #3 (of 4)
PREDATOR HUNTERS #5 (of 5)
KILL OR BE KILLED #12
ASH VS. THE ARMY OF DARKNESS #3
SPY SEAL #2
UNCLE SCROOGE #434
BETTY & VERONICA COMICS DOUBLE DIGEST #256*
ARCHIE JUMBO COMICS DIGEST #282*

*Will review later. B&VDD#256 contains yet another instance of more proof that the colorists never ever bother actually reading any of the stories they color. I've seen this happen so many times in stories that it's both embarrassing and irksome!  >:(

DeCarlo Rules

09-12-17:
SHEENA #1
THE GREATEST ADVENTURE #5 (of 9)
GREEN HORNET 66 MEETS SPIRIT #3 (of 5)
WILL EISNER'S THE SPIRIT: THE CORPSE MAKERS #4 (of 5)
KEVIN SMITH'S YOGA HOSERS (one-shot)
KISS/VAMPIRELLA #4 (of 5)
HELLBOY & THE B.P.R.D. 1955: OCCULT INTELLIGENCE #1

DeCarlo Rules

September 13, 2017, 02:24:02 am #1274 Last Edit: September 13, 2017, 02:36:43 am by DeCarlo Rules
Quote from: DeCarlo Rules on September 12, 2017, 12:38:10 am

...and then I had to laugh when I looked at this cover again. I mean, it's obviously a reprint of an older Dan DeCarlo gag from... who knows where.
But then someone decided to mess with the original drawing, so that the joke doesn't even make sense anymore. "What beach umbrella?", indeed? The real question here should be... "WHAT bikini???" since the girl sitting under the beach umbrella behind Archie ISN'T WEARING A BIKINI, but a one-piece swimsuit.


ANATOMY OF A JOKE GONE WRONG:

Since I located a previous use of that same cover gag where the girl under the umbrella is STILL wearing a bikini, let's compare them and try to figure out what might have happened here:


On the left is the image as it was altered by the production department for use on the cover of that 1000 Page digest, and on the right is a previous appearance of the same Dan DeCarlo gag on the cover of ARCHIE DOUBLE DIGEST #230, where the girl appears in a bikini as DeCarlo had originally drawn the gag.

However, someone decided that they needed to put a big banner across the cover of the 1000 Page digest, proclaiming "OVER 100 CLASSIC STORIES", and the placement of that banner happens to cover up umbrella girl's derriere, so someone probably looked at it and thought "If we leave it like this, it kind of looks like she might not be wearing any panties, because all you can see now is her bare belly and her bare leg. I guess maybe we should color in her bare midriff to make it look like a one-piece swimsuit." Except that colorists don't ever seem to actually READ what's on the page, so they didn't notice or care that THE JOKE HERE IS SPECIFIC TO A GIRL IN A BIKINI. If someone had noticed that, they could have still fixed it with another minute's work of alteration, like so:

If you're going to remove the bikini from the girl that Veronica is referring to in the joke, then you've got to remove the word "bikini" from Veronica's dialogue balloon, or it makes it look like the people at ACP are idiots. It's still not quite as funny as the original version of the joke, though, because in the original version, the girl under the umbrella is wearing a more revealing swimsuit, a bikini, that gets Archie's attention, where Veronica is wearing a one-piece swimsuit that's less revealing. If the girl under the umbrella is also wearing a one-piece swimsuit, the same as Veronica is, there's less reason for Archie to stare at her lustily, although of course that's never stopped his wandering eyes before.




The Archie character names and likenesses are covered by the registered trademarks/copyrights of Archie Comic Publications, Inc. and are used with permission by this site. The Official Archie Comics website can be visited at www.archiecomics.com.