collapse

* Random Image

WorldsApart16
WorldsApart16
Posted by: SAGG
Posted in album: SAGG

* Search


* Recent Topics

Archie & Me: Prank Attack by PTF
[Today at 01:42:19 PM]


Super Suckers: That Lady is a Real Witch by PTF
[Today at 12:52:44 PM]


Betty and Veronica Vixens coming to an end with issue 10 by DeCarlo Rules
[June 16, 2018, 02:26:26 PM]


Library Books That You All Read by BettyReggie
[June 16, 2018, 02:13:45 PM]


ARCHIE COMICS FOR NOVEMBER 2017 by JamesScefe
[June 16, 2018, 10:11:52 AM]


What comics have you been reading? by BettyReggie
[June 15, 2018, 08:49:58 AM]


Riverdale Reviewed by Tuxedo Mark
[June 14, 2018, 08:12:06 PM]


Latest Hauls, what did you buy? by Archiecomicxfan215
[June 12, 2018, 10:18:37 PM]


What have you done today? by BettyReggie
[June 12, 2018, 04:02:11 PM]


Here is Practical Explanation about Next Life, Purpose of Human Life, by xaa0
[June 11, 2018, 11:41:04 PM]

* Shoutbox

Refresh History
  • Tuxedo Mark: And another one: [link]
    June 14, 2018, 08:42:07 PM
  • Tuxedo Mark: Riverdale spoof: [link]
    June 14, 2018, 08:35:22 PM
  • Tuxedo Mark: My review of "Roughing It!" from B&V Friends #262: [link]
    June 14, 2018, 08:12:53 PM
  • DeCarlo Rules: @irishmoxie -- It's definitely complete. All six of the 1958-59 Sy Reit/Bob White original issues, plus the feature-length "Good Guys of the Galaxy" by Tom DeFalco & Fernando Ruiz from ARCHIE #655, and three 5-page digest shorts that guest-starred Cosmo -- and the complete first issue of the Ian Flynn/Tracy Yarley COSMO (2017) thrown in for good measure. It follows the same layout/format as the previous JUGHEAD'S TIME POLICE, even though that didn't carry the "Archie Comics Presents..." trade dress. Not a bad buy for $11.
    June 14, 2018, 01:08:59 AM
  • irishmoxie: Anyone get the Cosmo book that came out today? Any good?
    June 13, 2018, 08:04:49 PM
  • Cosmo: Ah man....and I was worried I was the last enthusiast for ERB's stuff. I'm currently rereading my Dell Tarzan books. Really good fun! It took a while to complete that run.
    June 12, 2018, 06:51:53 PM
  • DeCarlo Rules: ...Marvel's earlier JOHN CARTER, WARLORD OF MARS in there, so the DE Tarzan comics need to go in a different box, and SHEENA (also a recent DE title) and DC's RIMA THE JUNGLE GIRL will help fill up that box.
    June 11, 2018, 07:40:48 PM
  • DeCarlo Rules: Recently. DE's unauthorized LORD OF THE JUNGLE Tarzan adaptations (and its authorized THE GREATEST ADVENTURE) won't fit into my existing box of previous Tarzan comics from Gold Key, DC, and Dark Horse, so I have to start a new box. Logically these get filed with DE's unauthorized WARLORD OF MARS comics (including DEJAH THORIS) and their authorized JOHN CARTER, WARLORD OF MARS. But I also want to squeeze Marve;
    June 11, 2018, 07:38:48 PM
  • DeCarlo Rules: Interesting. I tend not to group titles by publisher at all, if the characters were not created as work-for-hire (meaning the publisher is legally considered the 'author' of the character). Do they belong to that publisher's "universe" (assuming it has one)? There are some publishers like Dynamite Entertainment where the vast majority of the titles they publish are licensed, and thus were "inherited" from other publishers. Therefore it makes more sense to me to group them together in boxes with similar characters. Flash Gordon, The Phantom, and Mandrake comics (regardless of who the actual publisher was) go together in the same box because they're all classic adventure heroes licensed from Hearst Entertainment (formerly King Features Syndicate). Pulp fiction heroes like The Shadow, Doc Savage, and The Spider (regardless of the fact that the latter did not originate with the same publisher as the first two) also get grouped together. Space considerations allowing, Tarzan (and other Edgar Rice Burroughs adaptations) might share the same box with Sheena and Rima, but NOT with Ka-Zar, because he's a Marvel Universe character.
    June 11, 2018, 07:16:22 PM
  • rusty: I do keep all Star Trek series together in their own section and all Star Wars books together.  I also keep all 2000AD titles together and manga books get their own section.  For titles that have switched publishers, I usually keep them all with the publisher that I identify them with the most.  Tarzan has been published by a variety of publishers, but I keep them with Dell/Gold Key.  Conan is starting to get a bit close with all the success Dark Horse has had, but I still identify Conan more with Marvel.
    June 11, 2018, 06:27:26 PM
  • DeCarlo Rules: Believe it or not, I even have a box labeled "Pseudo-manga" that contains comics published by American companies and created by American creators like Astro Boy & Racer X (Now Comics), Battle of the Planets (Gold Key & Top Cow/Image), Captain Harlock (Malibu), Godzilla (Dark Horse) and Ultraman. I just want to keep those separate from the boxes of real translated manga in floppy comic format.
    June 11, 2018, 03:34:17 PM
  • DeCarlo Rules: Well. the problem is when you get titles with licensed characters that aren't owned by the publisher. So if you collect Star Trek comics, you'd have different series published by Gold Key, Marvel, DC, and IDW (and I probably missed one in there). It doesn't make sense to me to put them in different boxes by publisher, but to each his own. Disney comics would be another example. There are even some instances where if I like a certain artist enough, I will put all his work regardless of publisher or characters into one box, like Paul Gulacy, Steve Rude, or Mike Allred (and file them chronologically from older to newer, rather than alphabetically). Those are examples where my interest in the creator far exceeds my relative interest in whatever characters are involved.
    June 11, 2018, 03:14:29 PM
  • rusty: That makes sense.  There are many ways that people can file books.  What I do is file by company or category and then alphabetically within each section.  My first category is Richie Rich then Archie, then other Harvey titles, then Disney, then other humor/kids books, then by company (unless it is a company where I don't have very many books from them.  Star Trek and Star Wars each get their own section as well.  I will probably revamp a bit when I do my next major sort/merge.  The biggest section by far for me is DC.
    June 11, 2018, 09:28:59 AM
  • DeCarlo Rules: I don't even file my comics alphabetically. I file them according to how closely they're related to other titles, but it's all dependent on the number of issues I have of any given title, and what will fit into a single box. Fpr ACP comics I just put all the short-run series (whether an actual miniseries or just a not particularly successful title) into one box. Even though some of those short run series star Jughead, and I could as easily file those together with the main JUGHEAD title in another box. For longer running ACP titles, "girl" titles are sorted into different boxes than "boy" titles. Eventually when I have enough issues of BETTY (and BETTY AND ME and BETTY'S DIARY) they'll get their own box, and VERONICA will get her own box.
    June 10, 2018, 09:49:06 AM
  • rusty: I file Jughead under J and Reggie under R in all of their incarnations, though I do file the original Lois Lane and Jimmy Olsen books under S since that keeps them with the Superman books and also because they kept that title throughout their entire run.  If anyone wants to look up Jughead or Reggie in Overstreet, though, they will have to look under A for the early issues.
    June 10, 2018, 07:56:27 AM
  • BettyReggie: I can't wait to get that Reggie book. It's coming out the day after my 39th Birthday.
    June 10, 2018, 06:42:06 AM
  • DeCarlo Rules: Yeah, I never understood why publishers felt the need to point that out on the covers of a comic book, like maybe someone didn't really know who REGGIE was, and might buy it just because they noticed the words "Archie's Rival" above the big letters that spelled REGGIE? Same with "Archie's Pal" or "Superman's Pal" or "Superman's Girl Friend" -- like some potential buyer wouldn't know who Jughead, Jimmy Olsen, or Lois Lane was, but would know who Archie or Superman was? Just assume you're selling the product to idiots, I guess. Is anyone really filing REGGIE under "A" for Archie's Pal in their collections??
    June 10, 2018, 05:42:02 AM
  • rusty: In it's first incarnation, Reggie was titled ARCHIE'S RIVAL, REGGIE.  It wasn't until after the title was resurrected nearly a decade later that it became REGGIE and then REGGIE AND ME.
    June 09, 2018, 10:23:13 PM
  • Tuxedo Mark: I've never understood why those old titles had "and Me" in them, anyway. Why not just name the titles after the starring characters?
    June 09, 2018, 08:17:45 PM
  • DeCarlo Rules: Funny that the trade paperback collection is entitled REGGIE AND ME Vol. 1, when his floppy comic book series was actually titled just plain REGGIE for the first 18 issues (and going on hiatus for nine years in between issues #14 and 15). Since it's only a 224-page book, that should mean we'll be seeing reprints of stories from the first 9 (or maybe 10) issues. So shouldn't it be titled REGGIE Vol. 1? Unless they actually do plan to start the first volume with issue #19 from 1966 (the first classic Evilheart issue) where the title actually changed to REGGIE AND ME. My theory is that the ME in that title = Evilheart, unlike the prior titles ARCHIE AND ME (where ME = Mr. Weatherbee), or BETTY AND ME (where the ME = Archie).
    June 09, 2018, 12:59:59 PM


Author Topic: What comics have you been reading?  (Read 262887 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

SAGG

Re: What comics have you been reading?
« Reply #1260 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...  ???

DeCarlo Rules

Re: What comics have you been reading?
« Reply #1261 on: September 04, 2017, 06:13:47 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.
« Last Edit: September 04, 2017, 07:06:15 AM by DeCarlo Rules »

rusty

Re: What comics have you been reading?
« Reply #1262 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.

DeCarlo Rules

Re: What comics have you been reading?
« Reply #1263 on: September 04, 2017, 09:19:01 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

Re: What comics have you been reading?
« Reply #1264 on: September 04, 2017, 10:19:02 AM »
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
« Last Edit: September 04, 2017, 04:42:35 PM by BettyReggie »

rusty

Re: What comics have you been reading?
« Reply #1265 on: September 04, 2017, 06:52:53 PM »
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

Re: What comics have you been reading?
« Reply #1266 on: September 05, 2017, 03:08:52 PM »
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

Re: What comics have you been reading?
« Reply #1267 on: September 06, 2017, 04:23:47 PM »
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

Re: What comics have you been reading?
« Reply #1268 on: September 08, 2017, 04:45:14 PM »
I haven't read any in a while because I'm coloring a lot so today I will read.

BettyReggie

Re: What comics have you been reading?
« Reply #1269 on: September 08, 2017, 06:44:09 PM »
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

Re: What comics have you been reading?
« Reply #1270 on: September 10, 2017, 07:13:11 AM »
I took Archie #23- Thomas Pitilli's issue out of the comic frame so I just read it.

DeCarlo Rules

Re: What comics have you been reading?
« Reply #1271 on: September 12, 2017, 12:38:10 AM »
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.
« Last Edit: September 12, 2017, 01:45:09 AM by DeCarlo Rules »

DeCarlo Rules

Re: What comics have you been reading?
« Reply #1272 on: September 12, 2017, 05:14:59 PM »
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

Re: What comics have you been reading?
« Reply #1273 on: September 13, 2017, 01:49:14 AM »
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

Re: What comics have you been reading?
« Reply #1274 on: September 13, 2017, 02:24:02 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.


« Last Edit: September 13, 2017, 02:36:43 AM by DeCarlo Rules »

 


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.
Live Support