collapse

* Random Image

TheJoke'sOnYou1&2
TheJoke'sOnYou1&2
Posted by: SAGG
Posted in album: SAGG

* Search


* Recent Topics

What comics have you been reading? by SAGG
[Today at 03:08:29 AM]


Some reviews. by DeCarlo Rules
[October 23, 2017, 05:42:36 AM]


Suppose if a live action comedy-drama series is based on an Archie Comics proper by terrence12
[October 23, 2017, 01:28:49 AM]


Riverdale Reviewed by Tuxedo Mark
[October 22, 2017, 09:03:05 PM]


your pal Archie complete(?) wraparound chocklit shoppe variant cover by Ronny G
[October 22, 2017, 07:16:12 PM]


What have you done today? by Archiecomicxfan215
[October 21, 2017, 11:55:10 PM]


Library Books That You All Read by BettyReggie
[October 20, 2017, 07:34:34 AM]


Days we look foward to as Archie Fans. by BettyReggie
[October 20, 2017, 07:32:12 AM]


My mixed thought about Cosmo and Archie Action Brand by terrence12
[October 19, 2017, 01:26:56 AM]


What are you currently watching? by Archiecomicxfan215
[October 19, 2017, 12:00:38 AM]

* Shoutbox

Refresh History
  • DeCarlo Rules: Thanks, VJ. I did not know of Penny Peabody. If they're going to reprint Little Archie, I wish they'd reprint the longer, better (pre-1965) ones by Bolling. It seems like the longer stories allowed Bolling to create something more interesting out of LA, but there seems like some taboo against reprinting them in the digests.
    October 23, 2017, 09:46:35 PM
  • BettyReggie: I plan to watch Riverdale Espoide #1 & # 2 on The CW. Website later.
    October 23, 2017, 06:42:39 PM
  • Vegan Jughead: Penny Peabody was the girlfriend of Fangs Fogarty, the bully in the Little Archie comics.  I know you don't love those and even if you did read a lot of them, she's barely in them.  Really obscure.  Real Ms Grundy is dead I think.  This one stole her identity if I remember correctly.
    October 23, 2017, 12:23:28 PM
  • DeCarlo Rules: ...and if Ms. Grundy wasn't Ms. Grundy, then who was she, and where is the real Ms. Grundy?
    October 23, 2017, 05:59:39 AM
  • DeCarlo Rules: Penny Peabody? ... original character created by the show's writers?
    October 23, 2017, 05:56:42 AM
  • Tuxedo Mark: My review of "Archie's Weird Mysteries": "I Was a Teenage Vampire": [link]
    October 22, 2017, 09:04:01 PM
  • Ronny G: Actually yesterday. Today's Sunday, but I just got home from vacation today!
    October 22, 2017, 07:11:20 PM
  • Ronny G: Got my Betty and Veronica Halloween Annual digest in the mail today! YAY!
    October 22, 2017, 07:09:45 PM
  • Vegan Jughead: Hey but who needs Moose and Midge when you can have such prominent characters as Penny Peabody and Toni Topaz on the show?
    October 22, 2017, 10:30:03 AM
  • Vegan Jughead: Ms. Grundy would have been a total surprise but it turned out she wasn't really Ms. Grundy so I can let that go.  Killing Moose after barely seeing him last year and Midge after she was in literally one episode (and barely in it, at that) seems ridiculous.
    October 21, 2017, 08:31:51 AM
  • DeCarlo Rules: For a character franchise that's been running for 75+ years, ARCHIE really has a pretty small cast of regulars. Apart from the core 5 and the other 6 already mentioned, there's Cheryl & Jason and Kevin... and (filed under "extended supporting players") the teachers and parents. That's pretty much it. 14 teen characters and their parents & teachers. Sabrina and Josie and their supporting casts coexist in Riverdale, but they're really their own separate franchises. If your murder victims turn out to be Jinx Malloy and Cricket O'Dell, there's not much drama in it, beyond a shrug.
    October 21, 2017, 07:12:39 AM
  • DeCarlo Rules: Why Moose and Midge? Good question... let me know if you can think of any other ongoing characters who are more expendable, but still well-known. I guess the other likely candidates would be Dilton and Ethel, or Chuck and Nancy. I guess you could come up with a short list of other names, but are they really that well-known? Ms. Grundy was a total surprise!
    October 21, 2017, 06:45:30 AM
  • BettyReggie: Midtown Comics has the new January 2018 Comics. I preordered mine.
    October 20, 2017, 05:17:44 PM
  • CAPalace: Seriously though why are Moose and Midge like one of the first people to die whenever they are in the horror stories line and now Riverdale lol
    October 20, 2017, 12:36:49 PM
  • Tuxedo Mark: I recently watched Geek House's reaction to the episode. They're very amateur. They often leave in false starts and farting around before the actual intro. Joey often struggles with the episode title, like he can't just look it up before they start recording. Joey has to announce that he's putting the video into full screen and then does a countdown. Cut all of that stuff out! In the new review, he and his wife didn't react at all to Moose and Midge being killed. It soon became apparent that they didn't even know it was Moose and Midge! Joey referred to them as the "drug addicts".
    October 20, 2017, 11:42:14 AM
  • Vegan Jughead: Oh, wow, that sucks.
    October 20, 2017, 09:21:57 AM
  • JonInIowaCity: I'm not saying that they're dead, but they're not listed as appearing in any future episodes in IMBD, while other minor characters are.
    October 20, 2017, 08:53:10 AM
  • Vegan Jughead: I don't think Moose and Midge are dead.  I hope not.  It's one thing to kill Jason Blossom.  Killing two characters who have been around for 68 years is something else entirely.
    October 20, 2017, 07:43:40 AM


Author Topic: What was your first Archie comic?  (Read 2545 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

gillibean

What was your first Archie comic?
« on: December 12, 2016, 06:56:22 PM »
What was your first Archie comic?


I technically don't even know what my first one was. It was some random issue of Betty and Veronica that I read at my grandma's house. I was like, 6 and I didn't like it because I didn't understand it.


So instead I count my first Archie comic as "Betty and Veronica Double Digest #186" I got it for Christmas 3 years later, and I've been addicted ever since. I've read it so many times that its not in the best condition, but its still my favorite comic.


Another one of my favorites, from when I had just gotten started with Archie, was laugh #10. The main story is "A Star is re-born" Starring the Mighty Archie Art Players. I fell in love with this story, and it is still one of my favorites.


Do you guys have a particular issue your sentimental about?

Re: What was your first Archie comic?
« Reply #1 on: December 12, 2016, 11:11:00 PM »
my very first issue was Betty and Veronica Double Digest #132 and i got it at the end of 6th grade.  was 12 years old. My dad brought it for me as a surprise and he thought it would of been a fun read for me, although he did not expect me to be obsessed with the comics. Now I have over 200 digests and more and a few of the 1000 pagers and i had Betty and Veronica pajamas back then. My mom brought me Archie Christmas ornaments last year.

Thank you dad for giving me my life long obsession :smitten:

fact: i had no idea there were Archie comics as a Betty and Veronica Double Digest was my first Archie comic and Digest. Didnt help the first two stories didnt have Archie in it either for me to figure it out even though it said the Archie Digest Library :2funny:
« Last Edit: December 12, 2016, 11:14:31 PM by Archiecomicxfan215 »

rusty

Re: What was your first Archie comic?
« Reply #2 on: December 13, 2016, 12:56:09 AM »
I have no idea what my first Archie comic was, though I probably read it some time in 1978.  I don't know if it was a new issue or a back issue that I picked up at the comic shop.   It might have been one that my dad brought home from school.  He was an elementary school teacher and sometimes picked up a bundle of comics from the newsstand distributor to use in his classroom.

DeCarlo Rules

Re: What was your first Archie comic?
« Reply #3 on: December 13, 2016, 04:46:23 PM »
This is one of those questions like... What was the first TV episode you ever watched?

It's possible that someone may have an answer for that, if it was event that particularly motivated them, or left an indelible impression on them. For most people though, it's probably a very casual thing, part of the background of a multitude of influences or experiences as part of growing up, that fades from memory along with a lot of other details over time. I can't even recall for certain what the very first comic book I ever read was (I know it wasn't an Archie comic), although I can narrow it down to a few possible candidates. I kind of skipped the whole Archie-reading experience and went straight to superhero comics (DC and Marvel, mainly) when I was about 7 or 8. Shortly afterwards, I acquired a couple of second-hand collections that were pretty much a mixed bag from all the comic book publishers active at that time, or a few years earlier at any rate, so I'm sure some Archie comics were among them, but those weren't the titles that my attention was focused on. I probably read them before eventually getting rid of them somehow.

To put it another way... if I knew there was going to be a test, I would have paid more attention. I CAN tell you what the first Archie comics I collected were, though. Those would be issues of THE MIGHTY CRUSADERS and FLY-MAN and MIGHTY COMICS PRESENTS from 1965-67 (purchased at a used book store, years later). At the time I was heavily into the Marvel and DC superhero universes, and found the concept of a "Third Universe" (or Fourth, if you count Tower Comics' T.H.U.N.D.E.R. AGENTS and its spinoff titles) irresistible. Archie Comics (or Mighty Comics Group as the superhero line was named on the covers) also had the added attraction that a lot of the characters were revivals of Golden Age superheroes, and comic book heroes of the 1940s always fascinated me, as there wasn't a lot of information (or reprints) of the less-well-known ones available at the time. That led to the later purchase (not as back issues this time) of the 2 issues of ARCHIE'S SUPER HERO SPECIAL COMICS DIGEST, in which I discovered (apart from the Mighty Crusaders characters) Archie as Pureheart the Powerful, Jughead as Captain Hero, Betty as Superteen, and Reggie as Evilheart. I never really found any of the comics that those stories were reprinted from as back issues, though. Not a lot of comics shops bothered to stock back issues of Archie Comics (apart from the superhero titles like Adventures of The FLY or Adventures of The JAGUAR) back in those days, and I find that remains largely true today. They simply don't seem to appeal to collectors as much as the adventure-type comic books, and are slow-movers as back issues for comics retailers. I continued to collect the 1980s run of all the Archie/Red Circle superhero titles, and the Impact Comics reboot of those characters from DC.

I can tell you what led me to my much more recent interest in Archie comics, though. The first Archie Comics I'd bought or read in a long, long time were the trade paperback collections THE BEST OF JOSIE AND THE PUSSYCATS, BETTY AND VERONICA SUMMER FUN, and THE MAGIC OF SABRINA THE TEENAGE WITCH. I always was a bigger fan of JOSIE and SABRINA than I was of Archie and the gang (probably because I liked the animated cartoons of those characters more), but mainly I was developing more of an appreciation for the classic artwork of Dan DeCarlo. The next things I bought were the hardcover books THE ART OF BETTY AND VERONICA and THE ART OF DAN DeCARLO, and the trade paperbacks THE PIN-UP ART OF DAN DeCARLO, Vol. 1 & 2 (all of the DeCarlo books were published by Fantagraphic Books). Around the same time I also bought the hardcover collection THE BEST OF ARCHIE'S MADHOUSE (published by IDW and Craig Yoe's YoeBooks). I still wasn't reading any of the regular Archie comics or digests at this point, but I had begun to notice them again -- especially Dan Parent's covers for BETTY AND VERONICA SPECTACULAR, and things like the "ARCHIE MEETS KISS" crossover in ARCHIE, and the LIFE WITH ARCHIE magazine (I really had no idea what that was all about, though). I'd also noticed the "New Look Archie" series when that had happened (and was utterly appalled at the concept -- as in WHY? Why would they mess with the classic cartooning art style, when that's really all Archie Comics had going for it?)

What finally got me to start actually reading Archie Comics was the "Death of Archie" (which turned out to be actually the end of "Life With Archie", although I didn't make the connection at first). I picked it up out of sheer curiosity, but with a completely cynical attitude towards "the old overly-dramatic 'Death of' comic book sales gimmick", but surprisingly, enjoyed it -- and was intrigued by many aspects of Riverdale that I wasn't familiar with. The collected edition of the final two issues of that series had a 2-page, utterly convoluted prologue that tried to encapsulate the events of the prior 35-issue run of LIFE WITH ARCHIE, and of course I now had to go and buy all the trade paperback collections of ARCHIE: THE MARRIED LIFE to see what I'd missed prior to Archie's death. I really enjoyed those, so I looked around at my LCS and started picking up all the recent back issues I could find (particularly any multi-part stories like 'Archie Meets KISS' or 'Archie's Rockin' World Tour', then in progress), which then led to me ordering nearly all the Archie trade paperbacks that were in print at the time, and then all of IDW's hardcover collections of "The Best of" Archie artists' series. Then I had to visit all of the local shops within driving distance, looking for recent back issues that my LCS didn't have. It didn't take me too long to come to the conclusion that the biggest attraction to me with the recent ACP comics was the work of Dan Parent. Then I started getting the 1000 Page Comics digests (seemed like a bargain for $15), but I resisted getting the ongoing digest titles for a few months, until the beginning of 2015. Little did I know that a year after I'd starting reading Archie Comics, that the digests would be all that was left of classic Archie, but I guess "The Death of Archie" should have been telling me something, apart from its status as an 'alternate future' story.
« Last Edit: December 13, 2016, 05:01:35 PM by DeCarlo Rules »

DeCarlo Rules

Re: What was your first Archie comic?
« Reply #4 on: December 13, 2016, 07:03:07 PM »
Oh yeah, almost forgot. Technically I guess the first recent Archie comic book that I bought (that was actually a comic book) would have been MEGAMAN #1. It's weird that I never ever played any of the videogames that the comic is based on (I'm just not much of a gamer guy), but I just liked the comic. It's sort of a 1980s-type version of the manga/anime character AstroBoy (a.k.a. Mighty Atom in Japan), and was undoubtedly inspired in large part by that character (one of the most popular manga characters of the 1950s/1960s, and the star of the first anime TV series). Both series have as their lead characters a powerful robot who looks like a boy, and the boy robot is sort of like a son to a roboticist - that would be Dr. Light for MegaMan, and Dr. Pachydermus J. Elefun (a.k.a. Dr. Ochanomizu in Japan) for Astro/Atom. Rock (a.k.a. MegaMan) has a sister named Roll, and Astro has his little sister AstroGirl (a.k.a. Uran in Japan). MegaMan is called RockMan in Japan, so "Rock & Roll" -- and "Atom & Uran(ium)". Astro/Atom has a robot older brother named Cobalt, and MegaMan/Rock has an older brother named Blues (now called ProtoMan). Both Astro and MegaMan fight other robots who follow the orders of evil men, and neither one of them likes to fight, but both do it only to protect humans from harm. Both of them tend to try to talk to their robot opponents to convince them that what they're doing is wrong, and both series have as running themes the place of robots within a human society and how robots should try to get along with and help humans, but shouldn't be treated as slaves or 'things', either.  Both series also deal with individuals or groups who hate, fear, or feel prejudiced towards robots as a group.

I never had the slightest interest in any of the Sonic comic books (so I skipped both of the crossovers), but I miss MEGAMAN.
« Last Edit: December 13, 2016, 07:21:58 PM by DeCarlo Rules »

DeCarlo Rules

Re: What was your first Archie comic?
« Reply #5 on: December 14, 2016, 03:06:30 AM »
fact: i had no idea there were Archie comics as a Betty and Veronica Double Digest was my first Archie comic and Digest. Didnt help the first two stories didnt have Archie in it either for me to figure it out even though it said the Archie Digest Library :2funny:

Not your fault you had to go and start with the best digest they published. Nowhere to go from there but downhill.  ;D

Frankly, ACP would have been a lot better off as a publisher if they didn't insist on putting Archie in practically everything they publish. But I guess they were sold on the idea that there had never been nor would ever be a greater comics character created, back in 1946 when they changed the name of the company to Archie Comic Publications. No other comic book company has ever been so intensely focused on a single character as the epicenter which everything else orbits. With the possible exception of Harvey Comics, who flooded the racks with dozens of title variations all featuring Richie Rich. Yeah, and look what happened to them (they went out of business). ACP should have taken a hard look at that, and done some serious thinking about diversifying the content of their publishing line. I mean, they tried, a little bit. For a while, it seemed like Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles was doing well for them, and then Sonic the Hedgehog. But really what they needed was another dozen semi-popular characters or little franchises within the company (and it's a lot better to create and OWN your own character, as a publisher, than licensing them from someone else). They just never bothered making it much of a priority -- when they tried new things that didn't sell, they'd just give up and say "I guess we should just stick with good ol' Archie". So here we are, such as it is. When times were good (late 1960s/early 1970s) with animated cartoons breeding new readers, Archie was golden, both comic sales and merchandising was up, and it seemed like they could do no wrong, so they just kept inventing new spinoff titles. But when sales began telling them "Everything's NOT Archie", they just refused to accept it, refused to make the creation of new characters a priority. I mean new characters that weren't dependent on the whole Riverdale background. Basically apart from Archie and his immediate circle, you had Josie and her friends, Sabrina, That Wilkin Boy, and the Madhouse Glads. Before that, I guess Katy Keene, Wilbur, and Super Duck were the only things that had any kind of a notably-long run, but they all faded, just like Madhouse Glads, That Wilkin Boy, Sabrina and Josie did eventually. They keep thinking that they need a television show to save the company, but that isn't going to work anymore, like it did back in the 1960s and 1970s. It may have helped them a little with TMNT in the late 80s/early 90s, but that whole phenomenon was a total fluke that you couldn't repeat by trying in 100 years. TV didn't really help sell Sabrina comics all that much in the late 1990s, and RIVERDALE the TV series isn't going to save the company today either.
« Last Edit: December 14, 2016, 03:55:17 AM by DeCarlo Rules »

Bluto

Re: What was your first Archie comic?
« Reply #6 on: December 14, 2016, 08:52:17 AM »
I have no idea what my first Archie comic was. That was a long, long time ago. But the first one I bought regularly was Jughead. He was my favorite!

BettyReggie

Re: What was your first Archie comic?
« Reply #7 on: December 14, 2016, 12:10:51 PM »
I'm not sure. But it could have been a digest.
« Last Edit: December 14, 2016, 05:41:42 PM by BettyReggie »

Re: What was your first Archie comic?
« Reply #8 on: January 03, 2017, 08:42:25 AM »
fact: i had no idea there were Archie comics as a Betty and Veronica Double Digest was my first Archie comic and Digest. Didnt help the first two stories didnt have Archie in it either for me to figure it out even though it said the Archie Digest Library :2funny:

Not your fault you had to go and start with the best digest they published. Nowhere to go from there but downhill.  ;D

Frankly, ACP would have been a lot better off as a publisher if they didn't insist on putting Archie in practically everything they publish. But I guess they were sold on the idea that there had never been nor would ever be a greater comics character created, back in 1946 when they changed the name of the company to Archie Comic Publications. No other comic book company has ever been so intensely focused on a single character as the epicenter which everything else orbits. With the possible exception of Harvey Comics, who flooded the racks with dozens of title variations all featuring Richie Rich. Yeah, and look what happened to them (they went out of business). ACP should have taken a hard look at that, and done some serious thinking about diversifying the content of their publishing line. I mean, they tried, a little bit. For a while, it seemed like Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles was doing well for them, and then Sonic the Hedgehog. But really what they needed was another dozen semi-popular characters or little franchises within the company (and it's a lot better to create and OWN your own character, as a publisher, than licensing them from someone else). They just never bothered making it much of a priority -- when they tried new things that didn't sell, they'd just give up and say "I guess we should just stick with good ol' Archie". So here we are, such as it is. When times were good (late 1960s/early 1970s) with animated cartoons breeding new readers, Archie was golden, both comic sales and merchandising was up, and it seemed like they could do no wrong, so they just kept inventing new spinoff titles. But when sales began telling them "Everything's NOT Archie", they just refused to accept it, refused to make the creation of new characters a priority. I mean new characters that weren't dependent on the whole Riverdale background. Basically apart from Archie and his immediate circle, you had Josie and her friends, Sabrina, That Wilkin Boy, and the Madhouse Glads. Before that, I guess Katy Keene, Wilbur, and Super Duck were the only things that had any kind of a notably-long run, but they all faded, just like Madhouse Glads, That Wilkin Boy, Sabrina and Josie did eventually. They keep thinking that they need a television show to save the company, but that isn't going to work anymore, like it did back in the 1960s and 1970s. It may have helped them a little with TMNT in the late 80s/early 90s, but that whole phenomenon was a total fluke that you couldn't repeat by trying in 100 years. TV didn't really help sell Sabrina comics all that much in the late 1990s, and RIVERDALE the TV series isn't going to save the company today either.


But if all of these other characters couldn't stay popular either, why would Archie Comics Productions keep making new characters? I can understand the logic...if their established, non-Riverdale characters like Sabrina and Josie were fading, than why bother with creating entirely new characters? I'm not so clear on the history of the popularity of the non-Archie series; was there a specific reason that only Archie really managed to survive consistently over the years?


Personally, I would still read new classic-style Josie, Sabrina, and Bingo Wilkin stories, but I guess I can see why they stopped being published. Archie stories can be so much more diverse than these three characters' series were. Josie and the Pussycats stories always had to focus on music and the band (something that wasn't true before the Pussycats element). Sabrina stories typically focused on Sabrina and her aunts having wacky encounters with magic in the modern world. And That Wilkin Boy stories were similar to Archie, but with much more focus on the characters than the settings. Archie survived because the setting of Riverdale was so integral to the stories. It was a character in its own right, and it could be anywhere in America: if it was winter, the entire town was filled with snow; during summer, the beaches were packed. Pop Tate's Chocklit Shoppe was memorable on its own, as were the Lodge mansion and Riverdale High. And there was a wealth of characters that could be explored: the regular gang was always around, but so were a bunch of other students, the teachers, and the families. None of the other ACP-published comics that I've read have been so diverse in what they would portray. Perhaps this is why ACP decided not to publish anything but Riverdale-centered comics; they realized they had a wealth of opportunity in the one setting alone.

DeCarlo Rules

Re: What was your first Archie comic?
« Reply #9 on: January 03, 2017, 02:53:47 PM »
But if all of these other characters couldn't stay popular either, why would Archie Comics Productions keep making new characters? I can understand the logic...if their established, non-Riverdale characters like Sabrina and Josie were fading, than why bother with creating entirely new characters? I'm not so clear on the history of the popularity of the non-Archie series; was there a specific reason that only Archie really managed to survive consistently over the years?

The nature of the comic book industry is cyclical. At the time ACP first began publishing comics, the median age of readers was much younger than it is today. Successful mainstream publishers like DC and Marvel are constantly testing the boundaries of their marketplace by introducing new characters and new titles -- it's a constant, ongoing process for them, with new titles based on new characters being introduced every single year that those publishers have been in business. It's all about filling in a variety of niches for a variety of different types of readers.

Ask yourself where would the Big Two comics publishers be today if, at some point early in their publishing history, they had just decided to stop creating new titles based on new characters. What if DC Comics had decided in 1938 that having a big hit with Superman meant that they need create nothing more than new titles spinning off that basic concept? Supergirl, Superboy, Lois Lane, Jimmy Olsen, and so on? "BATMAN?!? What do we need with a Batman? We've got SUPERMAN!" But then what happens when Superman isn't as popular as he once was? The spinoff titles are the first to be cancelled, as sales on the main Superman title begin to drop. There are simply some readers who aren't interested in Superman, and never will be. The same applies to Marvel Comics -- what if, in the early 1960s, having decided they had big hits on their hands with Fantastic Four and The Amazing Spider-Man, they simply decided to rest on their laurels and publish nothing new but titles spinning off characters and variations from those two? Well, to start with, no X-Men then -- a franchise that has generated millions of dollars for Marvel in one form of media or another, but even just considering the comics sales, there were times when X-Men titles and their spinoffs outsold everything else they published.

Even BATMAN -- it's hard to believe today, but there was a time in the early 1960s when sales on BATMAN and DETECTIVE COMICS had fallen off so badly, that the titles were in danger of cancellation. They received a bit of a facelift in 1964, but even then, while sales did improve, the improvement wasn't as dramatic as DC would have liked. At the same time, sales of SUPERMAN, ACTION COMICS and related titles were booming. It wasn't until a television producer named William Dozier expressed interest in developing a series based on Batman that sales took off, even eclipsing sales of the Superman titles for a couple of years. On a similar note, by 1986 sales of the Superman titles had fallen off so badly that the character got a complete reboot. This clearly demonstrates that putting all of your eggs in one basket is not a good approach for any publisher.

As a publisher, you can't just bank on ONE concept to carry you for decades and decades. Those kind of evergreen franchises are the real flukes, the oddities. It's the aggregate sales of hundreds of different titles of middling popularity whose sales wax and wane over the years, as they are eventually replaced by other titles in a constant process of turnover -- as new readers come in, and old readers leave -- that gets the publisher through the tough times when the ups and downs of the business mean that sales on Superman or Spider-Man are not as good as they were at one time. Diversity of content in publishing helps insure that the publisher is not totally dependent on one idea or concept for their success. The fact that Archie Comic Publications made a decision early in their history never to stray very far from Archie, and even moreso, one specific type of reader, is what led them to where they are today. NOW they're finally trying to appeal to a different type of reader than the one they traditionally did (perhaps a case of too little too late), but ironically, they're still focusing their main efforts on variations of Archie and his extended cast -- first LIFE WITH ARCHIE, then AFTERLIFE WITH ARCHIE, and now New Riverdale ARCHIE.

If you want to look into a crystal ball to see where the Archie franchise is eventually headed, it isn't the New Riverdale comics published by ACP. That's no more than a temporary thing. Instead, look at the comics based on the classic Disney characters. Although it's fair to say that as far as the Walt Disney Company is concerned, comics based on their characters have always had a distinctly minor place in the company's revenue, at one time (the 1930s through the 1950s) Disney comic books were huge. WALT DISNEY'S COMICS AND STORIES was once the best-selling comic book in America, and before that, the Mickey Mouse and Donald Duck newspaper strips were carried in hundreds of papers (not unlike the Archie newspaper comic strip). Since the 1980s, Disney comics have passed through the hands of a number of different publishers, from Whitman to Gemstone, to Disney Comics to Boom Studios, to IDW -- and been published in high-end reprint hardcovers for nostalgic collectors by Russ Cochran, Gemstone, Fantagraphics and IDW. As regards that last market, IDW and Dark Horse have already done the same for Archie titles, and it sure looks to me like that's the path that Archie comics are bound to follow.
« Last Edit: January 03, 2017, 06:12:46 PM by DeCarlo Rules »

irishmoxie

Re: What was your first Archie comic?
« Reply #10 on: January 03, 2017, 08:45:12 PM »

But if all of these other characters couldn't stay popular either, why would Archie Comics Productions keep making new characters? I can understand the logic...if their established, non-Riverdale characters like Sabrina and Josie were fading, than why bother with creating entirely new characters? I'm not so clear on the history of the popularity of the non-Archie series; was there a specific reason that only Archie really managed to survive consistently over the years?



I think the only reason Archie as a character survived is because otherwise they would have to change the name of the company. I also think the Goldwaters really like him. Besides Archie, Sabrina has been eternally popular with so many different reincarnations.

irishmoxie

Re: What was your first Archie comic?
« Reply #11 on: January 03, 2017, 08:52:57 PM »
But if all of these other characters couldn't stay popular either, why would Archie Comics Productions keep making new characters? I can understand the logic...if their established, non-Riverdale characters like Sabrina and Josie were fading, than why bother with creating entirely new characters? I'm not so clear on the history of the popularity of the non-Archie series; was there a specific reason that only Archie really managed to survive consistently over the years?

The nature of the comic book industry is cyclical. At the time ACP first began publishing comics, the median age of readers was much younger than it is today. Successful mainstream publishers like DC and Marvel are constantly testing the boundaries of their marketplace by introducing new characters and new titles -- it's a constant, ongoing process for them, with new titles based on new characters being introduced every single year that those publishers have been in business. It's all about filling in a variety of niches for a variety of different types of readers.

Ask yourself where would the Big Two comics publishers be today if, at some point early in their publishing history, they had just decided to stop creating new titles based on new characters. What if DC Comics had decided in 1938 that having a big hit with Superman meant that they need create nothing more than new titles spinning off that basic concept? Supergirl, Superboy, Lois Lane, Jimmy Olsen, and so on? "BATMAN?!? What do we need with a Batman? We've got SUPERMAN!" But then what happens when Superman isn't as popular as he once was? The spinoff titles are the first to be cancelled, as sales on the main Superman title begin to drop. There are simply some readers who aren't interested in Superman, and never will be. The same applies to Marvel Comics -- what if, in the early 1960s, having decided they had big hits on their hands with Fantastic Four and The Amazing Spider-Man, they simply decided to rest on their laurels and publish nothing new but titles spinning off characters and variations from those two? Well, to start with, no X-Men then -- a franchise that has generated millions of dollars for Marvel in one form of media or another, but even just considering the comics sales, there were times when X-Men titles and their spinoffs outsold everything else they published.

Even BATMAN -- it's hard to believe today, but there was a time in the early 1960s when sales on BATMAN and DETECTIVE COMICS had fallen off so badly, that the titles were in danger of cancellation. They received a bit of a facelift in 1964, but even then, while sales did improve, the improvement wasn't as dramatic as DC would have liked. At the same time, sales of SUPERMAN, ACTION COMICS and related titles were booming. It wasn't until a television producer named William Dozier expressed interest in developing a series based on Batman that sales took off, even eclipsing sales of the Superman titles for a couple of years. On a similar note, by 1986 sales of the Superman titles had fallen off so badly that the character got a complete reboot. This clearly demonstrates that putting all of your eggs in one basket is not a good approach for any publisher.

As a publisher, you can't just bank on ONE concept to carry you for decades and decades. Those kind of evergreen franchises are the real flukes, the oddities. It's the aggregate sales of hundreds of different titles of middling popularity whose sales wax and wane over the years, as they are eventually replaced by other titles in a constant process of turnover -- as new readers come in, and old readers leave -- that gets the publisher through the tough times when the ups and downs of the business mean that sales on Superman or Spider-Man are not as good as they were at one time. Diversity of content in publishing helps insure that the publisher is not totally dependent on one idea or concept for their success. The fact that Archie Comic Publications made a decision early in their history never to stray very far from Archie, and even moreso, one specific type of reader, is what led them to where they are today. NOW they're finally trying to appeal to a different type of reader than the one they traditionally did (perhaps a case of too little too late), but ironically, they're still focusing their main efforts on variations of Archie and his extended cast -- first LIFE WITH ARCHIE, then AFTERLIFE WITH ARCHIE, and now New Riverdale ARCHIE.

If you want to look into a crystal ball to see where the Archie franchise is eventually headed, it isn't the New Riverdale comics published by ACP. That's no more than a temporary thing. Instead, look at the comics based on the classic Disney characters. Although it's fair to say that as far as the Walt Disney Company is concerned, comics based on their characters have always had a distinctly minor place in the company's revenue, at one time (the 1930s through the 1950s) Disney comic books were huge. WALT DISNEY'S COMICS AND STORIES was once the best-selling comic book in America, and before that, the Mickey Mouse and Donald Duck newspaper strips were carried in hundreds of papers (not unlike the Archie newspaper comic strip). Since the 1980s, Disney comics have passed through the hands of a number of different publishers, from Whitman to Gemstone, to Disney Comics to Boom Studios, to IDW -- and been published in high-end reprint hardcovers for nostalgic collectors by Russ Cochran, Gemstone, Fantagraphics and IDW. As regards that last market, IDW and Dark Horse have already done the same for Archie titles, and it sure looks to me like that's the path that Archie comics are bound to follow.


Funny you should say this because to me, as someone who has never been and will probably never be interested in a Superman or Batman series***, it seems like DC and Marvel just reboot the same characters over and over again and haven't invented new ones since the 60's or maybe 80's.


If Archie is going to end up like Disney and be sold to different company after different company, it would actually be preferable because it would all be classic Archie for us nostalgic folks.


The new Riverdale series are wearing on me. The stories just aren't narratively strong enough. I would prefer them to be more introspective/first person. They keep switching from artist to artist shooting from the hip when sales drop again, while the real problem is the writing.


***Though I did like the newest Supergirl. Hopefully they won't stray away from the girlie story like they did for Patsy Walker which caused me to subsequently drop the series.

DeCarlo Rules

Re: What was your first Archie comic?
« Reply #12 on: January 03, 2017, 09:35:24 PM »
Funny you should say this because to me, as someone who has never been and will probably never be interested in a Superman or Batman series***, it seems like DC and Marvel just reboot the same characters over and over again and haven't invented new ones since the 60's or maybe 80's.

If Archie is going to end up like Disney and be sold to different company after different company, it would actually be preferable because it would all be classic Archie for us nostalgic folks.

The new Riverdale series are wearing on me. The stories just aren't narratively strong enough. I would prefer them to be more introspective/first person. They keep switching from artist to artist shooting from the hip when sales drop again, while the real problem is the writing.

***Though I did like the newest Supergirl. Hopefully they won't stray away from the girlie story like they did for Patsy Walker which caused me to subsequently drop the series.

Well, they haven't invented many new characters that have any real longevity since the 1980s, which isn't quite the same thing. This is because at one time comics used to be a mass medium, where the characters (even relatively new ones) had a paying audiences of millions (later reduced to a few hundred thousand) plus pass-along readers. Nowadays, the audience for most comics titles numbers in the tens of thousands (or even less, in the thousands). To make up for that, the Big Two comic book companies simply publish a lot more titles than they did back in the 1940s, '50s, '60s, or '70s. The sheer bulk of titles that they publish practically guarantees that they aren't ALL going to be spinoffs of existing characters or rebooted versions of previously-existing characters. Still, even a relatively recently-invented character like Jessica Jones, who starred in a series from Marvel called ALIAS for 28 issues from 2001-2004 can be made into Netflix series.

Another reason (reflecting on that last bit I mentioned) is that the comic book industry has changed since the 1980s in ways that make talented creators less willing to give away the rights to their creations to the publishers, when owning the rights to a comic book series they create might be a ticket to their own personal fortune (even if it rarely works out that way).

Since you probably wouldn't know which characters were new, as opposed to rebooted, you'll have to take my word for it. Although in some instances, the re-invention of a character (as with Dark Circle's BLACK HOOD) can be so complete in everything but the name that it virtually IS a completely new character. From the publishers' POV, it's better for them to hire writers and artists to completely re-think a previously-existing character from the ground up that the company already owns copyrights and trademarks on.

Even so, the fact that you never were, and never will be interested in Superman or Batman merely proves my point. You simply have to realize that the exact same thing applies to even more people when it comes to Archie. The evidence is irrefutable when you look at the existing media and merchandising over the decades. And for DC, they own both Superman and Batman, and liking one doesn't mean you have to like the other. And if someone doesn't like either of them, then there's The Flash, Green Lantern, Jonah Hex, Green Arrow, Swamp Thing, Sgt. Rock, The Sandman, Wonder Woman, and on and on and on. None of those characters is dependent on any of the others, but of course if someone DOES like Batman, there's also Nightwing, Batgirl, Robin, Batwoman, Batman Beyond, Catwoman, etc. to spend money on.

But the real point here is that while DC and Marvel continued creating dozens and dozens of new characters throughout the 1950s, 1960s, 1970s, 1980s... Archie Comic Publications was creating practically nothing new. I say "practically" because I listed most of them already in my previous post, except maybe for a few more minor ones like Sam Hill, Suzie, Ginger Snapp, Pat the Brat, L'il Jinx, Cosmo, Young Dr. Masters, Captain Sprocket, The Jaguar, The Fly (which they no longer own) and Fly Girl. While DC and Marvel now own these vast libraries of hundreds (if not thousands) of copyrighted characters that they CAN reboot so often, ACP only owns a few dozen characters (the vast majority of which were created in the 1940s), and only about a dozen or so of those have been published in the last 30 years. Even when they resurrected their superhero line for a few years in the 1980s, they added only a couple of new characters.
« Last Edit: January 04, 2017, 06:25:25 AM by DeCarlo Rules »

DeCarlo Rules

Re: What was your first Archie comic?
« Reply #13 on: January 04, 2017, 12:11:08 PM »
Besides Archie, Sabrina has been eternally popular with so many different reincarnations.

I don't know if I'd say 'eternally'. She was popular enough from 1971-1983, and again from 1997-2009, to support an ongoing comic. So about 25 years in total, but that was with a cartoon (1970s) and a live-action series (1997-) to help her achieve liftoff (and later, that *ugh!* damn kiddie-fied pre-teenage witch cartoon).

Then there's the "Chilling Adventures", but that has a lot more to do with trying to cash in on AFTERLIFE's relative success than anything else. Before the Filmation cartoon, Sabrina wasn't anything more that an irregular feature in ARCHIE'S MADHOUSE (no more or less important than say, Captain Sprocket, who also appeared there), and in between the two main runs of sustaining her own title, she was relegated to a smaller role as a backup feature in LAUGH and then ARCHIE & FRIENDS (and a few Annuals). Since 2009, she's been more of a guest-star than anything else.

Still, I'll grant the gist of what you're saying, that by any estimate Sabrina has to be ACP's most recognizable property outside of Archie and the gang. Yet if we're considering the characters as individual stars of their own titles (meaning breadwinners for the company) apart from whether they're connected to Archie or not, certainly both BETTY & VERONICA (as a team) and JUGHEAD rank higher in importance than Sabrina, so she'd rank 4th place at best, and possibly as low as 6th, if you consider both BETTY, and VERONICA, as individual stars of their own titles in addition to B&V together. Sabrina never quite got a digest title of her own, either (not even a short-lived, or infrequently-published one), and for ACP, as a company increasingly reliant on those digest sales, that probably puts her true relative popularity into better perspective. And oddly enough, JOSIE got a New Riverdale series before SABRINA, despite Josie being less successful as the star of her own comic since the 1980s. Guess we'll have to see how that Sabrina one-shot does in sales, and whether it leads to an ongoing series. I wouldn't put any special stock in the "different reincarnations". That has more to do with trying to align the character more closely to another media version ('The Animated Series'), or it's a sign that it wasn't selling well as it was (manga).

 


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