Quote from: daren on May 25, 2016, 02:43:05 AM
I finished the Blue Baron, liked it a lot. Now I'm brushing up on Afterlife 1-8 so I'll know what's going on when I read 9 tomorrow. I'm not looking forward to it, every reread I do of this series makes me like it less and the next issue sounds like it could misstep badly. I hope the character who does the "unexpected act of kindness" that makes Reggie confess is one of two characters even though it's not likely. 

Cheryl or Veronica. Otherwise the kindness would not be "unexpected". I won't read it until next week.

Quote from: daren on May 25, 2016, 03:14:02 AM

Quote from: DeCarlo Rules on May 25, 2016, 03:08:19 AM

Quote from: Thrillho on May 24, 2016, 10:34:45 PM
Ultimately, I think Archie is responsible for his bad behavior. I don't think it matters if Betty and Veronica still want to date him regardless of his behavior. Archie isn't a dog (debatable, I know), he's capable of thinking and reason, and should be a better person when it comes to dating, he's pretty decent otherwise.

Ultimately, the writers are responsible for his bad behavior... because an Archie who is girl-crazy gets himself into all sorts of trouble that leads to comedic situations.

It's the other way around. Archie's a kind of psychic vampire who makes the writers do what he wants. Thats how he's managed to stay the star of the whole series, otherwise it would have turned into the Betty and Veronica show long ago.

Does anybody really like Archie that much except the publisher and editors of ACP? Apparently they must, since the digests are overwhelming Archie stories with Archie's name in big letters in the title.


For me, it's the Sabrina and Josie show, but since they insist on not publishing too many of those stories, then I guess it's the Betty and Veronica show by default. Overall I like Betty better as a character, but as a comic book series VERONICA is superior to BETTY.


Since getting into Archie Comics, my interest in Jughead has grown a lot, though. At first it was just Trula Twyst that attracted my interest, but as I started to read more and more Craig Boldman/Rex Lindsey stories I really began to appreciate him more. That's still my favorite Jughead, but that was before I realized there are many different Jugheads (but all of them still more interesting than Archie).


I guess somebody really should write an essay here somewhere extolling the virtues (as they see them) of Archie and why he's interesting. To me virtually every other character within his orbit (at least the teenagers) is more interesting than Archie himself (well, maybe not Moose or Ethel, but they're not that much less interesting either).

Quote from: Thrillho on May 24, 2016, 10:34:45 PM
Ultimately, I think Archie is responsible for his bad behavior. I don't think it matters if Betty and Veronica still want to date him regardless of his behavior. Archie isn't a dog (debatable, I know), he's capable of thinking and reason, and should be a better person when it comes to dating, he's pretty decent otherwise.

Ultimately, the writers are responsible for his bad behavior... because an Archie who is girl-crazy gets himself into all sorts of trouble that leads to comedic situations.


And it seems that the writers' characterization of Archie is that he's INcapable of thinking and reasoning when it comes to girls. He can be a decent guy in one story, and then (reset) a fink in the next. Inconsistency seems to be built-in to the concept of classic Archie. He gets away with it because nobody takes a cartoon character too seriously... it's more important whether he's funny or not. When you come right down to it, his inconsistent behavioral swings between "pretty decent" and "fink" aren't believable in a real person (or at least, what's not believable is that there wouldn't be personal consequences to that kind of behavior -- not the temporary kind that result in a gag to end the story on, but lasting consequences in a realistic world where there are no 'reset buttons'). That's largely why a more realistic, consistent and continuity-bound Archie (which is what the reboot seems to be aiming at) doesn't interest me.

Quote from: Thrillho on May 24, 2016, 12:23:01 PM

Quote from: DeCarlo Rules on May 24, 2016, 10:20:55 AM

Quote from: daren on May 24, 2016, 02:13:22 AM

Quote from: Thrillho on May 23, 2016, 10:57:33 PM


Jughead is more of an enabler than Betty and Veronica since he tries to help Archie get away with his shenanigans.

In fact I'm almost posting this in the wrong thread.

JUGHEAD has to take it on the chin for being responsible? He's not directly involved, so he can only try to influence. When he tries to give Archie good advice, he usually ignores it, so all he can do is try to help him out of the messes he knows he's going to get himself in. Just because he gets some small enjoyment out of watching Veronica do a slow burn, realizing that she could just walk out of Archie's life but doesn't... he's just finding the humor in the situation where he can. He's got no control over what any of them choose to do or to put up with. Betty could end the shenanigans. So could Veronica. Not to mention Archie. This is a case of "it takes three to tango", and any one of them could decide to end the situation at any time simply by voluntarily quitting. Jughead can't do a thing to change anything, since appealing to logic or reason on anyone's part isn't going to work and he knows it.

Jughead may not be able to influence their actions but he does go out of his way to help Archie get away with just about anything, sometimes out of loyalty or for a price. There's the Gaslight story where Jughead helps Archie to convince Veronica she's crazy so Archie can get away with something, I don't remember what he did. The onus obviously isn't on him but he isn't uninvolved either.

Quote from: DeCarlo Rules on May 24, 2016, 10:20:55 AM
No, if we're talking about Archie's bad behavior, Betty and Veronica can be and are both enablers and victims of the bad behavior at the same time. They could walk away if Archie refused to clean up his act, but they don't.

Examples were posted of them dumping Archie, it just has no effect since there's a reset button for almost every story.

Jughead's actions don't have the effect of condoning Archie's behavior though. He's resigned to the idea of "Archie's going to do what Archie's going to do", so really the only thing that concerns him is his own motivation. That might just be some small enjoyment he gets from seeing Veronica get irritated, or protecting his own interests by helping Archie (because he needs to depend on Archie to borrow money from him, etc.) -- or just that by default he's got a closer connection to Archie than he does to any of the girls Archie dates. Besides which, if he doesn't at least make some comment or observation about the situation, he might as well not be there. There's no point in him being in any story (or gag panel) if he's just going to stand there and do or say nothing. I guess they could have a story where Jughead gets all morally upright on Archie and puts him down for his jerkwad behavior with girls, but like you say -- reset button.

Quote from: Thrillho on May 23, 2016, 10:15:33 PM
It was in a Veronica floppy but I sold off my collection, and I don't remember the specific issue but it's reprinted in World of Archie Digest #12, Veronica's Wonderful Life.

Thanks for posting that, Thrillho! Not the only variation on "A Wonderful Life" I've seen in a Veronica story, either, but this one's a gem. Plus it's got Sugar Plum in it, always a good thing.

Quote from: daren on May 24, 2016, 02:13:22 AM

Quote from: Thrillho on May 23, 2016, 10:57:33 PM


Jughead is more of an enabler than Betty and Veronica since he tries to help Archie get away with his shenanigans.

In fact I'm almost posting this in the wrong thread.

JUGHEAD has to take it on the chin for being responsible? He's not directly involved, so he can only try to influence. When he tries to give Archie good advice, he usually ignores it, so all he can do is try to help him out of the messes he knows he's going to get himself in. Just because he gets some small enjoyment out of watching Veronica do a slow burn, realizing that she could just walk out of Archie's life but doesn't... he's just finding the humor in the situation where he can. He's got no control over what any of them choose to do or to put up with. Betty could end the shenanigans. So could Veronica. Not to mention Archie. This is a case of "it takes three to tango", and any one of them could decide to end the situation at any time simply by voluntarily quitting. Jughead can't do a thing to change anything, since appealing to logic or reason on anyone's part isn't going to work and he knows it.


No, if we're talking about Archie's bad behavior, Betty and Veronica can be and are both enablers and victims of the bad behavior at the same time. They could walk away if Archie refused to clean up his act, but they don't.

Quote from: SAGG on May 23, 2016, 10:39:10 PM
Eh. I just prefer Archie in the modern world, no matter what his age is. To me, he just looks out of place anywhere else, be it with dinosaurs, flying cars, or dragons. Whatever floats your boat...

It's Little Archie that's out of place. It's a different genre, a different tone, and a different style. Little Archie is about as much like Archie as Archie is like Adventures of The Fly.


The stories where he appears in different times were later attributed to "The Mighty Archie Art Players" in an attempt to justify them as fiction from the perspective of the standard Archie stories, but they really existed just to break up the routine of things. You could think of them as "what if" stories, but really it's just a cartoon. Nobody demanded an explanation for why the Three Stooges might turn up in medieval times or the old west in one short or another. The costumes were available from the costuming department, and it gives a little variety to the scripts. They're still the Stooges regardless.

Quote from: SAGG on May 23, 2016, 10:28:34 PM
But, just wondering: Doesn't Betty and Ronica enable Archie to do his dirt by quite frankly overlooking his behavior as they continue to forgive his transgressions? Plus, Ronica cheats as much on Archie as he does her. I've always suspected that Betty would drop any boy she was going with in a New York Second if Archie suddenly asked her to go steady. I think Betty only goes out with other boys because she eventually believes Archie will someday come to his senses and see she's the only girl for him, and then she'll quit them. In the meantime, Betty refuses to be a girl that hopelessly pines for Archie by waiting by the phone while missing out on dating boys. What do you guys think?

There are stories where Archie treats Betty nice, and they have a wonderful time together (unsurprisingly, these stories appear nearly exclusively in Betty's own title). And there are stories where he's oblivious to her, and thoughtless of her feelings. Even worse, the stories where's he purposely cruel. The latter goes all the way back to Bob Montana's newspaper strip, where I was struck by the high incidence of daily gags where Archie says or does purposefully cruel things to Betty.


These are not the same Archie. Or he has some kind of dis-associative personality disorder. Or, each story really just exists as a kind of pocket universe all on its own.

Quote from: SAGG on May 23, 2016, 10:10:56 PM

Quote from: DeCarlo Rules on May 23, 2016, 09:19:09 PM
Yeah, I wondered about whether they'd reference that. It appears not, they seem to be ignoring it and just starting from scratch again.

Wonderful. Yet ANOTHER reboot....

To the extent that they're only rebooting 6 issues of a previous comic. The Joe Kelly/Ariel Olivetti SPACE GHOST miniseries didn't make much of an impact, and was quickly forgotten. Can't say I cared all that much for Kelly's take on the character, and it's not like his origin was canon or anything. Best that they start over from the beginning, especially as they need to incorporate a number of different series into a new universe.

Quote from: Thrillho on May 23, 2016, 08:46:15 PM

Quote from: daren on May 23, 2016, 03:11:14 AM
Zdarsky says in a tweet that he thinks Jughead is "asexual with aromantic leanings" and that if Jughead was older he'd probably make him asexual but not aromantic. Yeah a lot of people wouldnt like it if Jughead started dating in the reboot, unfortunately that book probably won't last long enough for his sexuality to matter. Someone posted the sales figures recently and I'd guess it's only got a few years left. I'd like to think the tv show will help but I doubt it will much. 


Even as bad as things are for classic Archie right now, that's probably the version with the best chance of surviving, maybe with some changes and hopefully another 32 pager someday. I don't know if ACP will ever call classic Jughead asexual but I guess it would be a good idea, it would give some representation without changing anything about him since "asexual" as I guess you know covers everything from aromantics to demisexuals and occasional primary sexual attraction (classic Archie wouldnt be obvious about that now, but in the future they might pull anything).


But yeah, ACP would never make classic Jughead strictly aromantic for the reason you said, it cuts off potential stories. I don't think even most advocates of asexual Jughead want that with all the Jughead ship art I've seen them post lately. I'd be happy with all-aro classic Jughead but I'm okay with almost all aro since most people want him to have some romantic potential.




-//------


Okay, I went looking for Jughead/Veronica fan art, there isn't any, but I found this:







Bob Montana didn't intend for Jughead to be completely aromantic. That clinches it, creator intent counts for a lot with me, not everything but a lot.

Dan Parent has a theory



I can definitely get behind this

NOOOO!!!  I WANT TO READ THE REST OF IT!!!

Yeah, I wondered about whether they'd reference that. It appears not, they seem to be ignoring it and just starting from scratch again.

Reading the STARFLEET ACADEMY miniseries a few days ago got me motivated to catch up on my IDW Star Trek comics, which I'd let pile up for over a year. So yesterday and today I made a concerted effort to catch up, and read a veritable boatload of Trek comics:


STAR TREK: NEW VISIONS #3-11 - A bookshelf format series of 48-page standalone episodes; fumetti done in 'photomontage' style, by manipulating hi-def screen grabs of the actors and props from The Original Series, mixed with Photoshop-created imagery, by John Byrne. As close as possible to watching new episodes of the classic Trek.

STAR TREK: MIRROR IMAGES TPB (= #1-5) - A miniseries based on the original series "Mirror, Mirror" episode that shows how that universe's Kirk became Captain of the ISS Enterprise.

STAR TREK (2011 ongoing) #35-54 - This is the series based on the J.J. Abrams rebooted Trek universe.

STAR TREK: ALIENS SPOTLIGHT TPB VOL. 1 - Six standalone stories focusing on the Star Trek alien races: Gorn, Orions, Vulcans, Borg, Andorians, and Romulans.

Quote from: invisifan on May 23, 2016, 10:05:33 AM

Quote from: DeCarlo Rules on May 23, 2016, 05:58:56 AM

Quote from: daren on May 23, 2016, 03:57:06 AM
It's true. I wish we could have both but classic somewhat discontinuous Archie is way more important.

I forgot to add that after the 1987 volume 2 'soft reboot' (so soft it went undetected by most readers apart from the numbering), continuity was not only allowed but seemingly encouraged. Yet even so, ACP didn't totally abandon the earlier flexibility of cartoon reality, so in a way, you got the benefits of both, by not applying the idea of 'continuity' TOO strictly -- but this period is where you first began to see footnotes acknowledging the events of previous stories.

Note, for example, that this is the period where stories too at-variance with 'standard Archie' became specifically delineated as "fictional" -- a play put on by The Mighty Archie Art Players, where previously, the exact same type of story (taking place in another time period, or parodying a movie or book) would have just appeared with no attempt to justify their anomalous nature.

The whole cartoon reality thing (as you define it — I'd really look for a different term though, that one's taken) applied to comics in general until the Silver Age when Marvel especially, and DC more hesitantly, began to do footnotes & backrefs to establish continuity ... Archie was just a little late to the game ... and DC frequently branded soon of their better stories which would have substantially changed the status quo as "imaginary" (where later they'd get an "Elseworlds" brand) ...

No. Archie's "reality" was always more loosely defined than DC's (and pre-Marvel Timely/Atlas). Not so much because of continuity, but because Archie was always more of a cartoon character, as opposed to DC and Marvel's adventure characters. Would Batman and Robin, for example, in 1958 appear in a story where (for no reason ever even attempted to explain) they are suddenly dressing and acting like beatniks? No, that gets accepted by readers of Archie comics at that time, because it's a cartoon. There's no need to explain why. Just like for no reason the Archie gang could appear in a story where (again, no attempt at ANY explanation) they are living in ancient Roman times. THAT is cartoon reality. Y'know, like Bugs Bunny.

Quote from: Captain Jetpack on May 23, 2016, 07:24:36 AM
Not if it was the Disney Octopus.
Nor Marvel.

Same octopus, different tentacle. 

Quote from: daren on May 23, 2016, 03:57:06 AM
It's true. I wish we could have both but classic somewhat discontinuous Archie is way more important.

I forgot to add that after the 1987 volume 2 'soft reboot' (so soft it went undetected by most readers apart from the numbering), continuity was not only allowed but seemingly encouraged. Yet even so, ACP didn't totally abandon the earlier flexibility of cartoon reality, so in a way, you got the benefits of both, by not applying the idea of 'continuity' TOO strictly -- but this period is where you first began to see footnotes acknowledging the events of previous stories.

Note, for example, that this is the period where stories too at-variance with 'standard Archie' became specifically delineated as "fictional" -- a play put on by The Mighty Archie Art Players, where previously, the exact same type of story (taking place in another time period, or parodying a movie or book) would have just appeared with no attempt to justify their anomalous nature.