Quote from: terrence12 on January 14, 2017, 11:18:02 AM

Quote from: DeCarlo Rules on January 14, 2017, 04:29:35 AM
If I had to do it all over again (or, the next time the whole site crashes and I have to re-register), I'd just change my username to Offtopic. Until then, if you see anyone posting under the name DeCarlo Rules, and he doesn't go off topic in the space of a week or two, you'll know it's not the real me.    What can I say. Sometimes it seems to me like the most interesting comments people make don't have anything to do with the thread topic.

It could be worse. At least I'm not a bot trying to sell you furniture from England.

But to get back to the subject...  The first thing that pops into my mind when I see a thread titled "A proper Archie live action series" is why anyone would want to make one in the first place, because it's practically a guarantee that it won't be "proper". A live action series just seems to lean in that direction to begin with, because you're asking actors to imitate cartoon drawings. Nobody seems to ask questions like "Why isn't there a proper Bugs Bunny live action series?".

The reason why the title of the thread is named "A proper Archie live action series" is because RIVERDALE is now a mystery thriller series and not being faithful to the source material

Isn't that what I said? It's already too late. There aren't going to be TWO live action series based on Archie on TV. And if RIVERDALE is as terrible as it sounds, and turns out to be a bomb and is quickly cancelled, then the TV producers aren't exactly going to be lining up to correct that show's "mistakes", either. (Although, can you really call them mistakes if they did it that way on purpose? Roberto Aguirre-Sacasa is certainly aware that he's not being faithful to the source material.) The point to take away from this is that they don't care that they're being unfaithful to the source material. What does some rinky-dink comic book writer know about entertainment anyway, compared to a big-shot TV writer? And you will NEVER eradicate that kind of thinking in the television and movie business.

BTW, I meant "why would anyone want to" make a live-action Archie series, not why did you make a thread about it.

Maybe you should ask yourself this question first before proceeding any further. Has there EVER been a live action series based on any cartoony-type comic that was truly "faithful to the source material"? I can't think of one. Not even the animated cartoons based on Archie have been faithful to the source material.

Unless you meant a live action series based on the New Riverdale comic books. That's a bit of a conundrum for me, because the New Riverdale comics are supposedly based on, but are not faithful to, the source material of the classic Archie comics. They could just have skipped the comics and gone straight to the unfaithful live action TV series as far as I'm concerned.

Did you ever wonder WHY there are so few (if any, depending I guess on how exacting you are about what is or isn't "faithful") faithfully-adapted TV shows or movies based on cartoon characters from comics or animation? To start with, you need a guy at the heart of the production that has "a vision" to faithfully adapt the source material. But even assuming that's what you start with, the chances of that faithful vision making it to the screen are slim.

Let's assume that you -- terrence12 -- are a fairly talented screenwriter who LOVES the classic Archie comics, and you have built up a string of impressive credits attached to previous successful productions, and you are a "name" guy that is somewhat in demand in TV production circles. You have "a vision" to faithfully adapt Archie as a live-action series, and you manage to get yourself into a meeting with producers who have the money to actually license the franchise from ACP. You spend weeks, months maybe, studying all the classic stories, making lists of important elements, characterization traits, typical scenarios, from the comics that have to be included to make this a faithful adaptation. You write the pilot script, and give it four or five drafts until it's a finely-polished gem that is faithful in every way to a typical Archie comic book story, and includes all the characters displaying all their commonly recognizable (to Archie fans) traits. You even give it to a few select hardcore Archie fans in secret to vet for anything out-of-whack or missing that you may have failed to recognize in your own script, and it comes back with glowing praise and all "Big thumbs-up! Brilliant!!", so you're confident that you did right by the source material and that you've distilled the essence of Archie into a television script. Now you face the uphill battle against every person connected with that production, in the chain of command, or with any attachment to the purse strings that will actually get the thing made, because everybody in those positions is going to have "notes" on revisions for you. Things they don't like about it, and other things that they want you to put in, that are going to compromise your original script and spoil your vision of a faithful adaptation. Even assuming that after it's revised to satisfy everyone, it still looks relatively not too bad... Then the casting director, over whom you have no control, makes some pretty "odd" casting choices of people that you, the writer, would never have envisioned in the roles you wrote. The production designers and set designers and costume designers are all working a little against your original mental conception of the script you wrote, too. Now it goes to be filmed, and the actors have some ideas about dialogue changes for their characters, or toss in some ad-libs while filming. The director and cinematographer have some ideas about tweaks to a lot of different scenes, too -- or they just come to a point in the actual filming where they say "This isn't working -- we've got to do something different." EVERYONE involved (all of whom have more practical clout with the production than you do) wants to put a little fingerprint on the thing, as if to say "You see that, there? That wasn't in the original script I got... that was MY idea. I came up with that part myself." By the way, it goes without saying that NONE of those people are Archie fans, and couldn't care less about how "faithful" your script was. And THIS is why faithful comic adaptations are rarer than hen's teeth. There are just TOO Many Cooks in the kitchen, and everything works to compromise the vision of the one guy who should be most responsible for seeing to it that that "vision" of faithfulness is realized. You can't win.

Quote from: DeCarlo Rules on January 14, 2017, 12:26:44 PM

Isn't that what I said? It's already too late. There aren't going to be TWO live action series based on Archie on TV. And if RIVERDALE is as terrible as it sounds, and turns out to be a bomb and is quickly cancelled, then the TV producers aren't exactly going to be lining up to correct that show's "mistakes", either. (Although, can you really call them mistakes if they did it that way on purpose? Roberto Aguirre-Sacasa is certainly aware that he's not being faithful to the source material.) The point to take away from this is that they don't care that they're being unfaithful to the source material. What does some rinky-dink comic book writer know about entertainment anyway, compared to a big-shot TV writer? And you will NEVER eradicate that kind of thinking in the television and movie business.

You know what I think ,If they never want to make a faithful adaptation of archie comics then they never should never have made  "Riverdale" in the first place but still if they are not interested in archie comics despite that the reboot makes them popular again,Then the company should have ended or bankrupt and if a series is to be made then the "riverdale" series should be made but  it should be faithful to the elements of both the original and reboot with a bit of comedy and drama like scrubs and if it's going to be aimed for older audience let it be but make the series faithful to the original and reboot ones with a bit of drama.And if those guys who are making "riverdale' are not interested in archie comics then they should never  turn it into "a murder drama series" in the first place.

And if i were making a proper archie series and if riverdale fails and is getting cancelled then I should make a comedy drama series faithful to the elements of  the source material but will have the tone of freaks and geeks and maybe scrubs.

Quote from: DeCarlo Rules on January 14, 2017, 12:26:44 PM Maybe you should ask yourself this question first before proceeding any further. Has there EVER been a live action series based on any cartoony-type comic that was truly "faithful to the source material"? I can't think of one. Not even the animated cartoons based on Archie have been faithful to the source material.

Actually the 70s are trying to the source materials elements and it worked though it has limited animation.Even Archie weird mysteries despite being a poor cartoon made by DIC and is a paranormal show is faithful to the elements.

Quote from: DeCarlo Rules on January 14, 2017, 12:26:44 PM Unless you meant a live action series based on the New Riverdale comic books. That's a bit of a conundrum for me, because the New Riverdale comics are supposedly based on, but are not faithful to, the source material of the classic Archie comics. They could just have skipped the comics and gone straight to the unfaithful live action TV series as far as I'm concerned.

You know if they ' skipped the comics and gone straight to the unfaithful live action TV series' then they should make the riverdale show but with a different name,different characters ,different town and not based on archie comics.

Quote from: DeCarlo Rules on January 14, 2017, 12:26:44 PM  Did you ever wonder WHY there are so few (if any, depending I guess on how exacting you are about what is or isn't "faithful") faithfully-adapted TV shows or movies based on cartoon characters from comics or animation? To start with, you need a guy at the heart of the production that has "a vision" to faithfully adapt the source material. But even assuming that's what you start with, the chances of that faithful vision making it to the screen are slim.

Let's assume that you -- terrence12 -- are a fairly talented screenwriter who LOVES the classic Archie comics, and you have built up a string of impressive credits attached to previous successful productions, and you are a "name" guy that is somewhat in demand in TV production circles. You have "a vision" to faithfully adapt Archie as a live-action series, and you manage to get yourself into a meeting with producers who have the money to actually license the franchise from ACP. You spend weeks, months maybe, studying all the classic stories, making lists of important elements, characterization traits, typical scenarios, from the comics that have to be included to make this a faithful adaptation. You write the pilot script, and give it four or five drafts until it's a finely-polished gem that is faithful in every way to a typical Archie comic book story, and includes all the characters displaying all their commonly recognizable (to Archie fans) traits. You even give it to a few select hardcore Archie fans in secret to vet for anything out-of-whack or missing that you may have failed to recognize in your own script, and it comes back with glowing praise and all "Big thumbs-up! Brilliant!!", so you're confident that you did right by the source material and that you've distilled the essence of Archie into a television script. Now you face the uphill battle against every person connected with that production, in the chain of command, or with any attachment to the purse strings that will actually get the thing made, because everybody in those positions is going to have "notes" on revisions for you. Things they don't like about it, and other things that they want you to put in, that are going to compromise your original script and spoil your vision of a faithful adaptation. Even assuming that after it's revised to satisfy everyone, it still looks relatively not too bad... Then the casting director, over whom you have no control, makes some pretty "odd" casting choices of people that you, the writer, would never have envisioned in the roles you wrote. The production designers and set designers and costume designers are all working a little against your original mental conception of the script you wrote, too. Now it goes to be filmed, and the actors have some ideas about dialogue changes for their characters, or toss in some ad-libs while filming. The director and cinematographer have some ideas about tweaks to a lot of different scenes, too -- or they just come to a point in the actual filming where they say "This isn't working -- we've got to do something different." EVERYONE involved (all of whom have more practical clout with the production than you do) wants to put a little fingerprint on the thing, as if to say "You see that, there? That wasn't in the original script I got... that was MY idea. I came up with that part myself." By the way, it goes without saying that NONE of those people are Archie fans, and couldn't care less about how "faithful" your script was. And THIS is why faithful comic adaptations are rarer than hen's teeth. There are just TOO Many Cooks in the kitchen, and everything works to compromise the vision of the one guy who should be most responsible for seeing to it that that "vision" of faithfulness is realized. You can't win.

That might be true but that's where you are wrong it's true there might be other obstacles but there are ways to get through them
If i were making a archie comedy drama series I find some other channels that will allows the creators to have free will to their show and give reigns by being a showrunner throughout ,I will collaborate with writers and actors and every members of the rew until the series will truly be faithful to the archie comics source material whether it medium of best.And if it's good I'll let it keep on running maybe  for four season or when people get  bored of the series and then i am done by ending the series with a bang or whimper that's how i will make archie series with a proper technique and that's cooperation,teamwork and finding a proper channel thats lets you be in charge of the series during the rest of the run.

Quote from: terrence12 on January 16, 2017, 10:55:43 AM
a archie comedy drama series I find some other channels [/font][/size]that will allows the creators to have free will to their show and give reigns by being a showrunner throughout ,I will collaborate with writers and actors and every members of the rew until the series will truly be faithful to the archie comics source material whether it medium of best.And if it's good I'll let it keep on running maybe  for four season or when people get  bored of the series and then i am done by ending the series with a bang or whimper that's how i will make archie series with a proper technique and that's cooperation,teamwork and finding a proper channel thats lets you be in charge of the series during the rest of the run.

It's EASY to just say it, and if that's all it took then there would be a couple of dozen examples of TV show adaptations that you could point to and say, "You see? THEY did it right, and so can we! We all just need to pull together and cooperate as a team." But that's just a pie-in-the-sky fantasy, and doesn't reflect the way things really work in the entertainment industry. Virtually ALL of the people who succeed in that industry do so because they are shameless self-promoters who are looking for a stepping-stone for themselves to whatever they think the next thing for them will or should be. The whole business is ego-driven by people who want to be recognized and credited for whatever they do, and that's far more important to them than any ethereal concept like "faithfully adapted from the source material". That's how they survive in that business, by getting noticed by people, not by submerging themselves beneath someone else's "vision". The whole industry is super-competitive and out for themselves, and everyone's concept of what is going to make them look good (on the screen, or in their resume) and lead them on to bigger and better things, is different than yours. It's only the really minor people who just take orders and have no real input of their own to the production, and the higher you are on the food chain, the more power you have to mess with someone else's ideas of how things should be done. The writers have no real power to demand that things be done their way. They are paid to write what they're being TOLD to write, and that's it. And if someone doesn't agree with what they wrote... it WILL be changed, whether it's by the person who wrote it in the first place, or if he balks at the changes, someone else.

And on top of all that, the prevailing attitude is "Who cares? Nobody actually reads comic books anyway." The only reason they bother to even license something in the first place is a concept that they like to call PRE-SOLD AUDIENCE. That means that the audience may never have read an Archie comic book, but they have some nebulous idea of what it is, and that it IS a comic book. Or if they DO know the comics, and recognize how UNfaithfully the show has 'adapted' the source material, they will watch it anyway. Regardless of what they've heard, and how bad they may fear it will be, THEY WILL WATCH IT ANYWAY -- and in the end, that's the only real reason that the TV people are licensing the rights.

Quote from: DeCarlo Rules on January 16, 2017, 12:39:18 PM
It's EASY to just say it, and if that's all it took then there would be a couple of dozen examples of TV show adaptations that you could point to and say, "You see? THEY did it right, and so can we! We all just need to pull together and cooperate as a team." But that's just a pie-in-the-sky fantasy, and doesn't reflect the way things really work in the entertainment industry. Virtually ALL of the people who succeed in that industry do so because they are shameless self-promoters who are looking for a stepping-stone for themselves to whatever they think the next thing for them will or should be. The whole business is ego-driven by people who want to be recognized and credited for whatever they do, and that's far more important to them than any ethereal concept like "faithfully adapted from the source material". That's how they survive in that business, by getting noticed by people, not by submerging themselves beneath someone else's "vision". The whole industry is super-competitive and out for themselves, and everyone's concept of what is going to make them look good (on the screen, or in their resume) and lead them on to bigger and better things, is different than yours. It's only the really minor people who just take orders and have no real input of their own to the production, and the higher you are on the food chain, the more power you have to mess with someone else's ideas of how things should be done. The writers have no real power to demand that things be done their way. They are paid to write what they're being TOLD to write, and that's it. And if someone doesn't agree with what they wrote... it WILL be changed, whether it's by the person who wrote it in the first place, or if he balks at the changes, someone else.[/size]

That might be true but i am sure this will turn into reality.I know there might be higher ups but i can assure them and to you that i will make my sitcom faithful to the elements of the old and new comics of archie.

[/size]

Quote from: DeCarlo Rules on January 16, 2017, 12:39:18 PMAnd on top of all that, the prevailing attitude is "Who cares? Nobody actually reads comic books anyway." The only reason they bother to even license something in the first place is a concept that they like to call PRE-SOLD AUDIENCE. That means that the audience may never have read an Archie comic book, but they have some nebulous idea of what it is, and that it IS a comic book. Or if they DO know the comics, and recognize how UNfaithfully the show has 'adapted' the source material, they will watch it anyway. Regardless of what they've heard, and how bad they may fear it will be, THEY WILL WATCH IT ANYWAY -- and in the end, that's the only real reason that the TV people are licensing the rights.

That might be true same  with novels because they don't have illustrations in them some of them anyway.However most people also watch television and movies and read books at the same,Heck we even read news.

Quote from: terrence12 on January 14, 2017, 02:38:19 AM

Quote from: steveinthecity on January 13, 2017, 11:22:29 PM
Eggs Actly.  Thank you for helping to make my point.   

Quote from: DeCarlo Rules on January 14, 2017, 12:35:01 AMwhether the intended humor translates properly. When it doesn't though, it hardly does any good to fret about it. Just roll with it.

Why you two go off topic ,It doesn't make any sense

Because conversation never strays organically unless you're moderated by a psychiatrist?

Quote from: steveinthecity on January 18, 2017, 12:57:19 AM
Because conversation never strays organically unless you're moderated by a psychiatrist?

Sigh...Never mind.