Quote from: Tuxedo Mark on January 14, 2017, 09:36:21 AM
Heh, I assumed all of that stuff WAS in the comics, and the TV series simply copied it.

I was aware the aunts were de-aged in the comics to match the show, but it's lame that they felt the need to explain it. They never explained the de-aging of any other adults.

The comics to look at to see what was changed would be this one-shot special and the following ongoing series:

http://www.comics.org/series/19972/

http://www.comics.org/series/11973/

Well, obviously Sabrina's own title would not have been revived if not for the show airing on television at the time. Yet the comics didn't merely copy everything that was an invention of the TV show, either. The aunts get de-aged in the one-shot special, which they presumably felt the need to explain because Dan Parent had been doing a completely different version of Sabrina (Sabrina at Gravestone Heights 91313) in the comic book ARCHIE & FRIENDS in the early 1990s, and that version spun off into 3 Sabrina holiday annual giants from 1993-1995 (and the TV one-shot was in 1996).

There was probably no plausible way to explain the major changes in Salem, so they didn't bother. While Salem had been appearing in the comics off and on up to that time, he was definitely a minor supporting cast member, except for the very occasional odd short that focused on his animal adventures - much less important, say, than Hot Dog is in Jughead's series. The changes made him one of the most important supporting cast members for Sabrina, although as he's drawn in the 1997 series, he more closely resembles Sebastian from Josie & the Pussycats than the pure black cat on the television show. In the 1997 series, Salem begins as a continuing semi-regular series of backup shorts. At the very end of the 2011 Sabrina comic series, Salem took over the comic (post-manga Sabrina) for a 4-issue miniseries -- but not as a cat; that series told of his adventures as a young warlock before the transgression for which he was punished by the Witches' Council by being sentenced to live as a cat.

The other stuff was added piecemeal, but not having watched the TV show much, I can't really tell you which stuff from the TV show they just chose to ignore. Any elements taken from the live-action show would have been only in SABRINA THE TEENAGE WITCH (1997) #1-31 (I think they managed to work a photo shot of MJH on to just about every cover), because after that it morphed into "Sabrina the Animated Series" (and yes, the change was explained in the story in the final issue, #32, before re-launching with the animated pre-teen SABRINA #1 in 2011 -- just as it was explained away again when Holly G took over and Sabrina reverted back to a teenager in issue #38 of that same series).

Not sure what you mean by the "de-aging of other adults". Who, specifically?  I guess there was Cousin Ambrose, which I don't think they explained in the comic, but he was a different story from the aunts, not having appeared much (if at all) since the early 1980s.

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: 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

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?".

Quote from: steveinthecity on January 13, 2017, 11:22:29 PM

Quote from: terrence12 on January 13, 2017, 11:17:43 PM

Quote from: steveinthecity on January 12, 2017, 09:27:09 PM
While I've just recently come to understand this is the most humorless message board in all the intranets, I would suggest your own humor and sarcasm meter be recalibrated when you have the opportunity.  PM me at your leisure so I might assist.

Huh? 

Eggs Actly.  Thank you for helping to make my point.   

Whether humor translates from the humor-er to the humor-ee (especially over the internet where tone of voice and visual cues like facial expressions are missing) is largely a matter of whether they have a common frame of reference. Emoticons are kind of a poor substitute for the face-to-face clues, and there's not much you can do about it. Differences in ages and backgrounds (as well as temperament) make a huge difference in whether the intended humor translates properly. When it doesn't though, it hardly does any good to fret about it. Just roll with it. 

It might be interesting to look at the comics that were being published concurrently while the TV show was airing, and identify which elements from the TV series were incorporated into Sabrina's comic incarnation, and exactly when they first appeared.

Off the top of my head:

* Sabrina is given a family name for the first time.

* Salem is now a warlock (or wizard, not entirely clear on the distinction in the context of this series) who had been turned into a cat, rather than an actual cat who is a witch's familiar, and can talk. Also, he's a black cat, rather than tawny. Did the TV series establish his warlock identity prior to being turned into a cat? (Salem Saberhagen in the later comics, although the last name was given as something different in a couple of earlier ones.)

* Info about Sabrina's parents for the first time in the comic, establishing the fact that she's half-witch/half-mortal

* Witches established as living in an other-dimensional 'Other Realm'

* Structure of how the Witches' Council works, other facts about the Other Realm

* Supporting characters introduced, like Sabrina's rival at school, Amy

* Aunt Hilda and Aunt Zelda de-aged (actually explained in the comics)

* Things specific to how witches' powers work

... and probably a couple of other things I'm forgetting

Going back almost a week or so...

THE ROOTS OF JAPANESE ANIME Up To WWII - Interesting DVD with 8 short films from 1930-39 (all under 15 minutes, in B&W) and one longer one made in 1942. The latter is about 40 minutes long, and is an animated reenactment of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. The film is titled Momotaro's Sea Eagle. Very bizarre from the perspective of a Westerner's eyes looking back from a vantage point 75 years in the future. This looks nothing like "anime" as people today would recognize it, but is more like a strange Japanese cousin to the Fleischer Bros. Studio cartoons of the 1930s. Momotaro was a popular boy hero character in Japan at the time, and in this film he's the commander of an aircraft carrier, with troops of cute cartoon puppies, kitties, bunnies, monkeys, foxes, and woodpeckers as the crew of his ship and planes. He assembles his troops and tells them of their mission - a surprise air raid to destroy the enemy base on Demon Island. We see the cute animal troops standing to attention in neat military ranks, and know they're ready for business because they're decked out in black boots and black gauntlets, wearing broad leather belts and either military caps or headbands with the Japanese flag (solid circle on a plain white background) or the Imperial Army flag of the Rising Sun (yellow sun radiating lines over a red background) on them. They climb into their fighters (relatively realistically-drawn Zeros), bombers, and torpedo planes and launch from the deck of the carrier. As they begin to approach Demon Island, we hear the musical strains of "Aloha Oe" growing louder (and realize that "Demon Island" is actually Hawaii). The total destruction of the animal air squadron's bombing attack is realistically portrayed as we see floating bits of debris in the harbor, with burning ships off in the distance, backlighting the nighttime devastation, as they slowly sink into the sea. During the actual attack we only see one representative of "the enemy", running around in panic, as he comically, and futilely, tries to flee to safety -- who just happens to look and sound exactly like Bluto from the Popeye cartoons. After some harrowing experiences being shot down, or having mechanical failures with their planes, the victorious air squadron all manage to return safely to the carrier (a few final stragglers, with the help of a giant sea eagle of the title) to report to Captain Momotaro of their glorious victory in the assigned mission, and all celebrate the end of the threat of Demon Island. Banzai!!

I bought this, so it's not a library book. Just up to page 70 (it's about 700 pages and pretty heavy) and I am already riveted by this book. Basically it's the history of the comics publisher Fantagraphics Books. Might sound boring to most people, but not to me, because I already know a lot about the background context and a lot the people that are involved, so I'm completely, utterly, fascinated by it. Wasn't sure I would be, to be honest, and I put off starting to read it for a couple of weeks after I first got it. It's not for everybody, but it's the kind of stuff I absolutely revel in.

SCOOTER GIRL #1, 3 & 6 (Because those were the only issues I could find.) This was originally published by Oni Press in the early 2000s (in black & white). It's supposed to be coming out as a TP from Image next month (and, IIRC, in color - at least I hope so). I kinda feel bad that I read the ending (#6) before reading the entire series. I don't know if I was quite satisfied with the way it ended, but I'm not sure if it was the actual ending itself, or the fact that I'd missed issues #2, 4, and 5 that made me feel that way. I'll give this a proper review once I get the chance to read the whole thing in trade (already ordered a copy).

Quote from: irishmoxie on January 12, 2017, 07:58:01 PM
The first season is the best. Once the Aunts left it wasn't as good. Salem was great throughout though and probably the best part of the show.

The Aunts were only in the first season? Or if not, when did the format change?

I think I recall seeing the entire series box set last time I was looking at DVDs in Walmart. Based on the recommendations here, I might give this another shot if it's not too expensive, but I'm still a little daunted at the prospect of watching all 163 episodes. (That seems like a LONG time for me to maintain interest in watching a show without getting bored.)

Like Mark, I never watched this much on television (I may have seen a couple of episodes) when it first aired. I just remember that I didn't like it as much as Clarissa Explains It All, which I really loved MJH in.

When I looked this up on Wikipedia, I was kind of surprised to find out that the original TV movie featured a title character named Sabrina Sawyer, and other characters unfamiliar to me like Seth (the boy at school that Sabrina has a crush on) and Katie La More (popular girl and Sabrina's rival for Seth at school). I don't know if the TV movies (there were 2 later ones after it began as a series) are included on the DVD set or if the series sort of 're-origined' Sabrina after the pilot movie.

I've been reading a bunch of stuff, but not posting that much, so consequently this list goes back a few days, maybe almost a week, is probably somewhat out of the order in which I read things, and may be missing a few things as well.

Holly G's SCHOOL BITES (digital) - It's a webcomic, so I'm going to call what I read "issues #1-7 (of 8 )" (some of these have a print version, but not all of them are printed as individual stories/comics). I might review this later on my review thread.

LOVEBUNNY & MR. HELL TP (Devil's Due Publishing, 2004) - This was a small (thin) manga-size TP in black & white, but it's not manga or even Amerimanga, just regular comics. It's a superhero parody. Not sure where the contents (short stories) were reprinted from... possibly a webcomic? It wasn't bad, so I'll probably try to figure out whether other comics with these same characters exist somewhere.

SAVAGE DRAGON #219

JUGHEAD #12 - Better than I thought it would be. I may review this later also.

REGGIE & ME #2 (of 5) - I just guess it goes to prove that even a talented writer like Tom DeFalco is capable of producing a dud, if he sets out to avoid writing an ACP story that has too much comedy in it. Pretty boring, sad to say, and this is coming from someone who enjoyed most of his non-comedy writing over at Marvel. Can't win them all, I guess.

MOONSHINE #4
SOUTHERN BASTARDS #16
DETECTIVE COMICS #948
WONDER WOMAN #14
TITANS #7
JLA VIXEN REBIRTH #1
JUSTICE LEAGUE / POWER RANGERS #1 (of 6)
SUPERMAN ANNUAL #1 (2016)
SUPERMAN #14
GREAT LAKES AVENGERS #4
SPIDER-MAN #12
LOBSTER JOHNSON (#27): GARDEN OF BONES
TARZAN ON THE PLANET OF THE APES #4 (of 5)
KONG OF SKULL ISLAND #6

MICKEY MOUSE: A MYSTERIOUS MELODY (or, How Mickey Met Minnie) HC GN - A large size, thin hardcover story of 60 pages, drawn in an interesting retro-Euro style, the story is set circa 1930, and has Mickey in the role of a scriptwriter chronicling the silver screen adventures of a dog named Rover (who will later be re-named Pluto, and this story explains why). The graphic novel co-stars Goofy with many other early Disney characters in smaller parts, and leads up to (as the title says) how Mickey and Minnie first met. While this was in many ways a loose and non-canonical re-interpretation of the classic Disney characters in a psuedo-classic style (Mickey has his classic red shorts, white face, and big black ovals for eyes), it was highly enjoyable nonetheless.

Quote from: Thestereotypebuster on January 12, 2017, 01:30:12 AM

"I don't get crushes" is the definition of asexuality.

Well, it's ONE OF the definitions, which isn't quite the same.

According to http://www.whatisasexuality.com/intro/ (just so you don't think I'm pulling this out of thin air):

QuoteAlong with a sexual orientation, people have what's called a romantic or affectional orientation that describes who that person might be romantically attracted to.  In many people, the sexual and romantic orientations are aligned, so people tend not to think about them being separate concepts.  It is not uncommon for asexuals to experience romantic attraction.

Romantic orientations are given names that parallel sexual orientations.  For instance, a heteroromantic person is someone who experiences romantic attraction toward a different gender, homoromantic  toward the same gender, and so on.  A significant number of asexuals also identify as aromantic, which means that they do not experience romantic attraction.

Separating romantic and sexual attraction is not strictly limited to asexual people, however.  For instance, it is possible for someone to be an aromantic heterosexual, or any other combination.

You may identify asexuality as defined by "I don't get crushes", but not all asexuals do, nor do all heterosexuals or homosexuals get romantic crushes. Some people simply keep romance and sex separated, and sexual abstinence isn't necessarily indicative of asexuality either. Darn people are so complicated that you need a hundred labels to keep up.

Quote from: SAGG on January 12, 2017, 04:22:16 AM
Jughead's related to Ms. Grundy! They both have the same type of nose!    Wait--Mr. Weatherbee does as well...

Ms. Grundy may possibly be related to Sabrina's Aunt Hilda (before she received the last name Spellman), since apart from their hair and manner of dress, they both look identical. But wait, that would be like saying that Betty and Veronica are related, as well... 

Quote from: apple on January 11, 2017, 09:06:47 PM
hm interesting how going against the norm, being different, and "going your own way" absolves you of all sexuality.

Like in language. We have words. That mean things. You can say you don't fit into any category all day long but in all honesty, you still actually do.

If Jughead had shown interest in girls none of you would be avoiding calling him straight just because weird people don't fit into labels. But whatever.

I think I already covered this in a post above, but he has shown interest in girls. But only in SOME stories. In others he's a "woman-hater", and other characters in the story specifically identify him by that label. I probably can't find a specific example to post here, or even more difficult to pin down, one where he identifies himself as a woman-hater (although it's certainly easy to find stories where he expresses his criticism of the female gender as a whole), but I can remember reading stories like that. The ones where he shows interest in girls are much easier to identify, and some of them are harder to quantify. One subject of debate revolves around Jughead's love relationship with January McAndrews, Marshall of the Time Police and a future descendant of Archie Andrews, which has raised a few eyebrows among people wondering just what exactly is going on there. There are even stories where Jughead dates Big Ethel and winds up having a good time. But it seems that in some stories he most definitely IS straight. Another good example of those would be LIFE WITH ARCHIE magazine (a.k.a. THE MARRIED LIFE in TP), where Jughead is married to Midge Klump.

Quote from: apple on January 11, 2017, 11:42:55 PM
I hate the voice actors they usually give Jughead. I don't care if it's supposed to sound funny or not. It's just annoying and grating to listen to.

Because that's what's traditionally signifying the "comic relief" character in any ensemble cast. The "funny" character gets the funny voice, the funny expressions, and the funny mode of dress. That goes way back in popular fiction and any kind of theater. It became particularly important during the era of radio plays, because the vocal mode of delivery was the primary means of characterization. Animated cartoons are sort of like illustrated radio plays, so they are the offspring of that tradition.