TMNT: BEBOP & ROCKSTEADY DESTROY EVERYTHING! #1-5
MARS ATTACKS: THE OCCUPATION #4 (of 5)
THE THREE STOOGES ("Stooge-A-Palooza") #2
TALES FROM RIVERDALE DIGEST #31-35, 38, 39 (the final issue).

All of this puts me into a frame of mind to think about the various inconsistencies in artistic depiction among the various artists working "assembly-line fashion" on the same characters in the comic book industry. Compared to the animation industry, which used the same assembly-line production methods employing a team of artists whose natural drawing style differed, comic books are just banged-out haphazardly -- anything to keep feeding the furnace of printing comic books and getting them into the hands of the readers on a regular and timely basis, and thus keep the profits flowing in for the publisher.

Comic books don't have the production planning and oversight that the animation industry has, where character reference guides showing all of the characters used in an animated film are routinely drawn up, showing that character in various poses and at different angles, in particular with reference to the head, showing how it should look from various angles and with different facial expressions. Often there would be a number of handwritten notes accompanying these model reference guides, detailing various do's and don'ts for drawing the characters. That was because there were several different animators working on any given film, and everything in the finished film needed to be consistent-looking and mesh seamlessly. Even though it was normally the case that one animator would be given the primary responsibility for a particular character, very few people are knowledgeable enough to be able to identify which artist drew which animated character just by looking at the film carefully.

I HAVE seen some of these character reference model sheets made for artists' reference in the comic book industry, but overall that's a very inconsistent practice. I think I've seen some drawn by the original Superman artist Joe Shuster, showing Superman, Lois Lane, Clark Kent made up to guide the artists working on Superman back in the 1940s when Shuster ran his own comics studio, where he hired a number of artists to meet the production demands for Superman comic stories once that character began to take off and Shuster couldn't possibly draw all the stories all by himself. Similarly, I've seen such model sheets featuring the same characters done sometime in the late 1960s or early 1970s by the then-main artist on Superman, Curt Swan.

In contrast to standard animation industry practices, in the comic book industry even in those cases where such model sheets were employed, they never bothered to account for EVERY new character that appeared in a story with those kind of reference model sheets. Why bother, when in the vast majority of cases, such reference would never be needed again? If there was a comic book artist who worked on a particular franchise, he could easily reproduce the likeness of a character he'd drawn before (and maybe even created the visual appearance of himself). There was no way to tell that any particular character might make another appearance, before the initial story had been drawn and printed. Of course, once they realized a character would be likely to appear again, they could have always gone back and created a model sheet for that character retroactively, but it seems to rarely have happened. It was just easier to hand a new artist an old comic for reference, but that was made more difficult for those characters whose appearances were random or infrequent, like Mrs. Lodge. Leroy Lodge might be another good example.

Going back to the Superman example, when Jack Kirby got hired away from Marvel by DC Comics, and began his stint there by taking over as the writer/artist on SUPERMAN'S PAL JIMMY OLSEN, the DC art editor looked at the resultant artwork and decided that Superman as drawn by Kirby looked entirely too inconsistent with the one being published in SUPERMAN and ACTION COMICS, and so artist Al Plastino was assigned to redraw the Superman heads which were then pasted over Kirby's original art, to make the character more consistent with the standard Superman style.

A similar type of occurrence happened (retroactively) when an old Jughead story featuring Jughead's Uncle Herman was reprinted in JUGHEAD & FRIENDS DIGEST. This happened after a new story had been written and drawn by Fernando Ruiz in that title, establishing Jughead's Uncle Herman and Bingo Wilkin's Uncle Herman as one and the same (thus establishing Bingo as Jughead's cousin, and justifying a continuing series of THAT WILKIN BOY reprints in the JUGHEAD & FRIENDS DIGEST). In the newly-reprinted version of the story, art alterations were made to the appearance of Jughead's Uncle Herman in the original artwork to make his face resemble that of Bingo Wilkin's Uncle Herman.

Yeah, exactly as @invisifan described -- the old Mrs. Lodge (in her infrequent appearances) was generally depicted as the sort of upper-crust society matron type you'd typically see in the old Three Stooges comedy shorts -- that goes all the way back to her 1940s appearances, although since she so seldom appeared, her exact appearance varied considerably from story to story and artist to artist. In looking through a lot of inconsistencies between how minor characters were drawn in older stories, it seems like there were never any style guides or model sheets used by ACP to give the different artists any reference. Sometime in the late 1980s/early 1990s Hermione Lodge got a makeover and was modernized, and began appearing more frequently, as a regular supporting character in VERONICA.

Quote from: ASS-P on July 09, 2016, 09:52:42 PM
Since so much stuff was destroyed in the old board's collapse I fuguure we - I - might as well re-post old threads/topics .

A lot of people seem to be thinking the same thing, and there have already been a few popular old threads that have been resurrected (although not with the old posts from the original thread -- those posts and images may be gone for good, unless Oldiesmann can figure out a way to recover them).

Quote from: ASS-P on July 09, 2016, 10:17:38 PM
  Will it keep having them ? Are these stories which have already been reprinted in Archie book collections (thus already " mastered " , if you will , for reprinting) ?
  Do the Jughead and B&V titles feature reprints too ?

The reprints (they're also in the back of JUGHEAD) mostly previously appeared in Dark Horse Comics' ARCHIE ARCHIVES (or ARCHIE'S PAL JUGHEAD ARCHIVES) hardcovers, and some of them in various "From the Vault" sections that have appeared in Annual and Jumbo digests in recent years. The new B&V isn't out yet, but I'd assume that they would have vintage B&V reprints in the back as well. It's anyone's guess as to whether ACP will continue the policy of reprints in the back, as there seems to be a general dislike expressed by most people who've commented on it.

Quote from: Thrillho on July 08, 2016, 05:50:23 PM

Quote from: DeCarlo Rules on July 08, 2016, 01:45:26 AM

Quote from: Thrillho on July 07, 2016, 12:58:30 PM
Like daren said upthread, Betty was the one entrusted to Jellybean's care, Veronica didn't even know Jellybean would be coming with them and she shouldn't have had that responsibility foisted on her unexpectedly. So yes, if you want to blame anyone for Jellybean not having a minder, blame Betty, she knows Veronica is going to take a nap yet she goes for a swim anyway, even though she is the one who agreed to babysit Jellybean that day. If Betty is the one being paid or even just agreed to babysit without compensation, she is the one who has to follow through with her promise. Now if this was an emergency situation where Betty had to run off, I would fully expect Veronica to step up, but this wasn't it. Furthermore, there's no legos in this story for Jellybean to choke on so there was no risk of that happening.

In hindsight, I can see where Betty made a fundamental error in judgment in choosing to ask her best friend to accompany her and Jellybean to the beach, and imagining that while at the beach she might still do a little swimming. I guess people sometimes do stupid things when they let themselves be influenced by friendship, and it was unreasonable of Betty to presume on that friendship and burden Veronica. Obviously she should have asked Brad. Or Midge, or Nancy, or Ethel, or one of those otherwise unnamed girls who walks through the foreground of the panels in those beach stories who she knows that also attends Riverdale High. Anyone but her best friend.

Babysitting isn't about what the sitter wants to do, it's about taking care of the child. I know because I babysat all through high school and college and I never purposefully ignored my charge for self-indulgent reasons. Betty cannot be upset Veronica didn't want to watch her when she didn't even tell Veronica in advance that Jellybean was joining them. Note that Veronica informs Betty first that she's taking a nap and Betty decides to leave anyway. That's when Betty should think, my swim can wait, or I can come to the beach another day when I don't have to watch Jellybean. Mrs. Jones hired Betty, when you hire someone for something you expect them to follow through not delegate the responsibilities to someone else, so yes if something happened to Jellybean while Veronica was napping and Betty was swimming all the blame would be on Betty. Mrs. Jones didn't hire Veronica to watch Jellybean she hired Betty, she is paying Betty. If Betty wanted Veronica to do her a favor, she would actually need to ask Veronica if she is willing to watch her, and it would be unfair of Betty to expect Veronica to do her work for her and not offer to compensate her, it's not like Veronica is her intern.

Like I said, Betty assumes certain things because she considers Veronica her best friend. They often do favors for each other, or team up to do something together. Maybe you think "if Betty has a job to do, then she shouldn't be at the beach trying to have fun with her friend at the same time", but Betty isn't viewing having Jellybean along as "work", she just sees it as an opportunity to have some fun with Jellybean, and her best friend at the same time. She doesn't really separate work from friends that way, and she doesn't see Jellybean as some kind of burden that prevents them all from having fun together. She can't quite get a handle on the fact that Veronica doesn't see it that way at all, because Betty is acting as if the three of them are actual sisters, which is indicative of the way Betty feels towards both of them.

Betty asked Ronnie "Can I trust you two together?" (the phrasing of which almost seems to invite a negative reply) and Veronica doesn't make much of a protest about it, she just says "Don't be long". That was her opportunity to declare "Hey, don't expect ME to do your job for you" or some other remark (polite or angry, whatever it takes to get the point across) indicating to Betty that she didn't want to be left alone with Jellybean, and I never said she wouldn't be justified in doing so, especially if she's convinced that Jellybean is "out to get" her. If she really believes that, she should be trying to convince Betty (who clearly dismisses that theory), or just letting Betty know she's not willing to do that favor for her, or if not -- she should just be paying attention to what Jellybean is doing, if for no other reason than looking out for herself.

Whether it's wrong for Betty to presume on the friendship or not, by not voicing a protest, Veronica tacitly agrees to allow her to leave Jellybean there. It's Veronica who suffers by not paying attention to Jellybean, and I can't blame that on Betty -- she's not being paid to watch Veronica. So Veronica needed to make up her mind here -- either let Betty know she didn't want her to go or tell her to take Jellybean with her - or, once Betty is gone, just pay attention.

All of this is beside the main point of the story, which to me, is that by forcing Veronica endure a situation where she has to deal with a child -- something which she finds awkward and uncomfortable -- something positive emerges, Veronica reaches out and forms an emotional bond, and she makes a new friend in Jellybean. She wins Jellybean's approval by putting up with her pranks with patience and good humor, rather than responding with anger or vindictiveness, and after trying to buy her affection with gifts, she finally shows that she's sincere in trying to make friends with her by showing Jellybean that she's capable of seeing the humor in laughing at herself. Jughead is dismayed to discover that "They've made her one of THEM!", and Veronica exits triumphant, which is a really nice ending.

Quote from: SAGG on July 08, 2016, 07:03:51 PM

Quote from: DeCarlo Rules on July 07, 2016, 12:43:26 PM

Quote from: The Downloader on July 07, 2016, 12:01:48 PM

Quote from: DeCarlo Rules on July 07, 2016, 11:53:30 AM
Pretty sure that ACP will be the first traditional company to go all-digital. I'm betting they wished they could have made the change a couple of years ago. Not like they haven't been pushing it hard enough, harder than any other company.

true, but f they continue on low readership, than they might not be able to.

Correction -- if they continue on low readership, digital might be the only affordable method left for them. WAY cheaper than print, and no distributors to deal with. Goes straight to your device, anywhere in the world.

I could put up with this, believe it or not. The only thing would be mostly Classic Archie or reprints of Classic Archie...

Well, they're already going digital-first with KEVIN, so that tells you they're willing to go that route with new stories as well. In fact, ACP's first digital-first title was the rebooted JINX, over 5 years ago. Whether that kind of thing is financially feasible for what they're paying the creators on the New Riverdale books, who knows. Depends on how good digital sales on those titles are, I guess.

Okay, checking around, I found that the first of four digital issues of JINX was released in May 2011. Those were later collected as a trade paperback graphic novel, and later a second trade volume (subtitled "Little Miss Steps") was released, but I'm not able to confirm if that went straight to trade, or was preceded by single digital issues first. JINX was a title which, like LIFE WITH KEVIN, seems to have been made generally available through multiple digital vendors.

Not so with REGGIE AND ME, a digital-ONLY 4-issue miniseries which was (and is still) exclusive to Archie Digital. The first issue of REGGIE AND ME was released in Sept. 2012, and to date there has been no print release of this series (not even as a reprint story in the digests).

The same applies to DILTON (again, a digital 4-issue miniseries), the first of which was released in June 2013 and is still available only through Archie Digital. Again, no print version of this series to date. Both REGGIE and DILTON are classic Archie stories which would blend in with the digests, apart from the fact that they are standard 25-page chapters in a continued story.

These are all examples of ACP experimenting with digital-only or -first new material going back some years now, so I have to believe that it's something they're anticipating as the near-future digital market of ACP.

Quote from: daren on July 08, 2016, 03:54:43 AM
Ill post one thing, the cover to the issue with Beach Blanket Babysitters which surprised me.



Betty's meant to be irresponsible in this story a little.

It's funny when Archie gets buried in the sand on the beach, and the same applies to Reggie. Why is it suddenly irresponsible when it happens to Veronica and a toddler instead of a teenager is doing the burying? When Archie or Reggie gets buried in the sand, it's usually left up to them to extricate themselves, but this story never implies that that's the case here with Veronica.

It's just a funny cover gag, and in the actual story Betty's not even there when Ronnie gets buried. Well, before she left to take a dip, she DID ask Ron "Can I trust you two together?" and Ronnie just said "Don't be long" instead of "NO! Don't LEAVE her here with me! I don't TRUST her!", which makes it kind of odd that Ronnie is relaxed enough to take a nap, for a girl that's so paranoid about a toddler that she thinks of as "This little troublemaker is out to get me!!" As soon she came back, Betty dug her out.

Seems to me that what's meant to be funny in this story is Ronnie's paranoia over the idea that she's convinced herself that Jughead has programmed Jellybean to do her bodily harm. Veronica's making those comments even in the beginning of the story, before anything has happened yet, and Jellybean is aware of her attitude towards her and doesn't like it, so it becomes sort of a self-fulfilling prophecy. Ultimately, it's Veronica showing Jellybean that she has the ability to laugh at herself that puts an end to Jellybean's mischievous pranks and wins Jellybean over, and changes her opinion of Veronica. A little humility and humanity, and proving to Jellybean that she was sincere in her efforts to make friends with her -- not trying to buy her affection with gifts, that's all Jellybean needed to see in Veronica to like her.

Quote from: Thrillho on July 07, 2016, 12:58:30 PM
Like daren said upthread, Betty was the one entrusted to Jellybean's care, Veronica didn't even know Jellybean would be coming with them and she shouldn't have had that responsibility foisted on her unexpectedly. So yes, if you want to blame anyone for Jellybean not having a minder, blame Betty, she knows Veronica is going to take a nap yet she goes for a swim anyway, even though she is the one who agreed to babysit Jellybean that day. If Betty is the one being paid or even just agreed to babysit without compensation, she is the one who has to follow through with her promise. Now if this was an emergency situation where Betty had to run off, I would fully expect Veronica to step up, but this wasn't it. Furthermore, there's no legos in this story for Jellybean to choke on so there was no risk of that happening.

In hindsight, I can see where Betty made a fundamental error in judgment in choosing to ask her best friend to accompany her and Jellybean to the beach, and imagining that while at the beach she might still do a little swimming. I guess people sometimes do stupid things when they let themselves be influenced by friendship, and it was unreasonable of Betty to presume on that friendship and burden Veronica. Obviously she should have asked Brad. Or Midge, or Nancy, or Ethel, or one of those otherwise unnamed girls who walks through the foreground of the panels in those beach stories who she knows that also attends Riverdale High. Anyone but her best friend.

Jellybean's welfare in this situation is ultimately Betty's responsibility, and she's the one that's going to have to make explanations to Mrs. Jones if anything were to happen to her. Let's say, hypothetically, that while Betty is off swimming and Veronica is napping, Jellybean chose to wander off somewhere, and when Betty came back, she was nowhere to be found. (If Veronica doesn't take a nap, and instead stays awake and pays attention to what Jellybean is doing, then Veronica doesn't wake up buried up to her neck in sand. I think that's called irony.) Betty would probably be frantic when Jellybean was missing and Veronica couldn't tell her where she was. She'd probably go to the Beach Patrol office or lifeguards' office, and tell them to institute a search for the missing child. With luck, after several hours of seaching the crowded beach, they'd find her, but then Betty (being the honest type) has to explain to Mrs. Jones when she brings Jellybean home what happened that afternoon (it's possible that Mrs. Jones expected her back by dinnertime, and is herself very worried about what's happened).

BETTY:  "Mrs. Jones, I am SO sorry about what happened! Jellybean just wandered off and got lost, and was missing for several hours until one of the lifeguards finally located her. It's ALL MY FAULT! I'm so ashamed...! I... I left her with Veronica while I went to take a swim, and when I got back, Veronica had fallen asleep and didn't know where Jellybean had gone, and I was going out my mind with worry...! I'll never do that again!!"

MRS. JONES: "BETTY!! You left my daughter all alone with Veronica!!? WHAT WERE YOU THINKING?! And I trusted you...!"

BETTY (she's crying now): "Sob! OH, I feel just so AWFUL about it, Mrs. Jones!" (At this point, Betty isn't going to point out that Mrs. Jones did exactly the same thing in leaving her daughter with Veronica in "Nanny Boy".)

MRS. JONES: "Betty, I am severely disappointed in you. I thought you were more mature and responsible, and had better judgment! I think you can understand that I won't be availing myself of your services as babysitter in the future. I have here the business card of a nice young man named Brad, who's studying to be a pediatrician, and who is working his way through school as a nanny, and I'll be using him as Jellybean's sitter from now on -- and I'm afraid if any other mothers ask me about you for babysitting references, I'll have to be honest with them and tell them how you let me down. I won't mention this to your parents, but I strongly suggest you go home and THINK about what you've done, and if you're the person I think you are, you'll tell them yourself. I know Veronica is your best friend, but your faith in her sense of responsibility is misplaced, and you should remember that in the future."

BETTY (still crying): "Sniff! Mrs. Jones, will I... never see Jellybean again?"

MRS. JONES: "Betty, I can see that you're truly sorry, but try to understand. Of course you're welcome to visit with Jellybean anytime, and I think she'd be sad if you never came to see her again. I know Jellybean really likes you, and I know you like her. I... just can't leave Jellybean alone with you any more. I'm sorry, Betty, but that's the way it has to be. You'll understand someday, when you're a mother."


As the story ends, Betty goes home and has a deep sense of shame and remorse, and a reality check regarding her misplaced trust and mistakenly high opinion of Veronica's character, but she feels even worse about herself, and her friendship with Veronica is never quite the same after this stressful incident.

THE END.

Boy, THAT was a downer. ... Nah, I think it's funnier if Jellybean just buries Veronica up to her neck in sand.

Quote from: The Downloader on July 07, 2016, 12:01:48 PM

Quote from: DeCarlo Rules on July 07, 2016, 11:53:30 AM
Pretty sure that ACP will be the first traditional company to go all-digital. I'm betting they wished they could have made the change a couple of years ago. Not like they haven't been pushing it hard enough, harder than any other company.

true, but f they continue on low readership, than they might not be able to.

Correction -- if they continue on low readership, digital might be the only affordable method left for them. WAY cheaper than print, and no distributors to deal with. Goes straight to your device, anywhere in the world.

Pretty sure that ACP will be the first traditional company to go all-digital. I'm betting they wished they could have made the change a couple of years ago. Not like they haven't been pushing it hard enough, harder than any other company.

Quote from: Thrillho on July 06, 2016, 01:27:28 AM

Quote from: DeCarlo Rules on July 04, 2016, 03:41:39 AM

In "Beach Blanket Babysitters" Veronica's behavior is different. It starts out with her behaving towards Jellybean much as she does in the earlier story. She just wants to nap on the beach, and leave Jellybean to play by herself, as long as Jellybean is quiet and doesn't disturb her nap. Once again in that story, she's just not even paying attention to Jellybean. Jellybean could be choking on a lego block, as long as she did so quietly.

How dare she do her own thing as opposed to watching the child her friend (who left to go swimming) is being paid to babysit. What the hell is wrong with her? Instead of enjoying herself at the beach she should clearly be watching any and every child at the beach like a hawk. How heartless can she be?

That's one vote for the "choke on the lego block" option. How dare Jellybean interrupt Veronica's nap with such meaningless and annoying behavior? I don't know, most people might say the 16-year old should be more mature than the toddler, but... you never can tell. And of course, who's being paid makes all the difference in who should be mature. Because watching every child on the beach like a hawk isn't worth the money she isn't being paid to do so -- or watching one single child entrusted to her care, which of course, is exactly the same thing. Or we can blame Betty, who should know better than to expect Veronica to be more responsible and mature than a toddler?

I take this to mean that were you walking along in the park, and happened to see a child sitting by herself, obviously choking on something, you'd do absolutely nothing, because it's not your problem. You chose wisely in avoiding having children.

Quote from: daren on July 06, 2016, 03:32:27 AM
MN: what was unsustainable is Keeping Archie the same and expecting that to save them forever...people these days want more from their comic books and archie wasn't delivering

I don't think they should have stayed exactly as they were but this is a huge divorcing step away from 75 years tradition, they could have tried something closer like hybrid classic Archie/Disney style art, the classic Archie artists probably would have done a good job with that. At least they could put that in the digests, most people would probably accept it as part of the main Archie continuity too, we can't say the same for the reboot stories, is there anyone who sees the reboot events as part of main Archie canon? THeres nothing wrong with that but I don't, I doubt most fans or ACP do either, when the art styles so changed it's hard to link them.

You perfectly summarize my feeling about it, Darin. SAGG will be disappointed that he can't take credit for it. 

Quote from: irishmoxie on July 06, 2016, 09:44:19 PM
Bought paper copies of Super Suckers 1 and 2 on the sit comics website because I love them so much. They came super fast in the mail even on a holiday weekend. And they sent me a bonus comic and sticker. Awesome!

Super Suckers is awesome. Darin Henry and Jeff Shultz are right on the money with this one. It's like the kind of "9 PM" comic book that I WISH Archie Comics was publishing (ditto for Die Kitty Die). I love having a print comic for it, and am looking forward to the same for Die Kitty Die from Chapterhouse Comics, later on this year. Darin is great with getting those printed issues right out to people.

ACP's concept of comics for an older audience than their traditional one seems to be putting a lot of foul language into the Dark Circle titles. It's been done, and a lot better, in other titles.

Quote from: irishmoxie on July 06, 2016, 08:54:50 PM

Quote from: DeCarlo Rules on July 06, 2016, 12:49:37 PM
Today, July 6:
HILLBILLY #1
FLINTSTONES #1
SILVER SURFER #15
MOON KNIGHT #4
PUNISHER #3
DAREDEVIL / PUNISHER #3 (of 4)
CAPTAIN AMERICA STEVE ROGERS #1
SUPERMAN THE COMING OF THE SUPERMEN #6 (of 6)
EMPRESS #4 (of 7)
UNCLE SCROOGE #320
DONALD DUCK #382
LOBSTER JOHNSON METAL MONSTERS OF MIDTOWN #2 (of 3)
WILL EISNER'S THE SPIRIT #12 (of 12)
THE BADGER #5 (of 5)
FUTURE QUEST #2
BATMAN '66 MEETS STEED & MRS. PEEL #1 (of 6)
INVADER ZIM #11
KIM & KIM #1
JUSTICE LEAGUE REBIRTH #1
AQUAMAN #2
CAPTAIN AMERICA SAM WILSON #11
TALES FROM RIVERDALE DIGEST #29 & 30

Looking forward to The Flintstones and Kim & Kim. How were they?


Edit: read Bounty and Kim and Kim now. I keep thinking they're the same series. Unfortunately Kim and Kim pulls a bait and switch where the interior art is not as great as the cover.

I wasn't impressed with Kim & Kim, and won't be following it. The Flintstones was... strange. It was a mixed bag, not all good or all bad. I'm not totally sure how I feel about it yet. I'll probably read a few more before deciding for sure if it's worth the time spent reading it.