Quote from: invisifan on May 16, 2016, 04:19:21 PM
I's very difficult to track

You IS very difficult to track. You're jumping around connecting dots in a non-sequitur way that makes your train of thought impossible to follow.
What do mushrooms (yeah, technical classifications aside, very few people are going to characterize mushrooms as a "creature") have to do with cryptozoology? Mushrooms are KNOWN, cryptids are UNknown. Therefore whether fungi can be considered a group organism is completely irrelevant. And why DO you insist on answering a straightforward question with a riddle in the form of the answer to a previous cryptic remark of yours that I've long since forgotten about? That was rhetorical. Don't you DARE answer, since I'm sure you'll think you're being clever, but you'll just be being annoying again.


Oh, why would you just be unobfuscating and just explain what you meant about the makeup? Obviously too much to ask.

Quote from: daren on May 16, 2016, 03:46:12 AM
Next one:

It's been interesting to me noting some things about the daily newspaper strips in reading them. For instance, in panel two here we have Mr. Weatherbee's secretary, who appears in a LOT of the strips, but (at least up to 1963 where I've read) is NEVER addressed by name. But she is in every respect, by the way she's drawn, the woman who'll we'll later come to know as Miss (or Ms.) Phlips. Svenson appears in a lot of the daily strips, Weatherbee in almost a quarter of them. Miss Beazly appears almost as often as Weatherbee and Miss Grundy. There's even a reoccurring character named "Old Man Beazly" who I've seen in a half-dozen strips or so, but never together with Miss Beazly. No connection beyond the obvious same last name is ever mentioned.


There are other Bob Montana creations in the strips that I've never seen in the comic books, like Hooky Hogan, the school's habitual truant, who always acts in the strips like an incarcerated felon, scheming ways to "bust out of the joint". Another that just starts appearing in multiple strips in 1963 is Hunk, who is a bit like an even dumber Moose Mason. (In the strip where he first appears, Coach Kleats sends him to work out with weights and a medicine ball in the gym, hoping he'll lose some weight so he can be on the basketball team. After a while, Kleats checks on Hunk to see how he's doing, and asks him to now try putting the ball in the basket to see how he's shaping up. Hunk tries to shove the medicine ball through the basketball hoop.)

Quote from: daren on May 16, 2016, 04:04:12 PM

Quote from: DeCarlo Rules on May 16, 2016, 04:13:01 AM

Quote from: daren on May 16, 2016, 03:38:25 AM
Not so much the novelty wearing off (though, it helped) as the series not living up to the promise of the first couple of issues. It seemed like big things would happen with the Lodge corporation moving in and Archie and his friends trying to get jobs working for them, I thought they would all become more and more involved with that. There should be some exciting development like that to carry the action through and the main five need something that brings them together, they're more interesting as a unit. Instead the stories are just rambling on from one character to another and I find myself not caring about anyone very much...and some of the characterization from the classic stories doesn't work. It's okay for classic Archie to be accident prone without showing that he's, you know, on meds or getting some other professional help, because it's not done realistically. This comic IS realistic and he and his parents just come across as so irresponsible for not reining him in. 

Call it what you will. Some of the initial bloom is off the rose as people seem to be beginning to take a closer critical evaluation of the reboot and various details about how the individual aspects of art and story (especially) relate to the whole. Your criticisms being different than mine (or others') notwithstanding. I think there was just a groundswell of initial enthusiasm that carried a lot of readers along that blinded them to some details about exactly how things were working (or not, as may be the case) with the reboot. The "decompressed storytelling" certainly delayed that assessment on a lot of readers' parts.

Good observations.

I'm still hoping a little that Mark Waid can salvage, but I doubt it. There was an article says he doesn't have an overall plan for this series, it shows.


Other characterizations that don't work: spoiled screaming Veronica who was sometimes awesome in the classic stories that way but comes across like she is almost mentally disabled here without explaining it, she's had her moments now and then but thats probably as much me wanting to like her as her being likable. Obnoxious social climbing Mr. Mantle is a terrible idea, if they wanted to make one of the Mantles a bad parent or jerk why not Mrs. Mantle? We know less about her and for ONCE they could have one of the mothers be less nice than the fathers. Mr. Lodge isn't half as complex as he was in the classic stories. Of course Waid could be lulling us into taking their villainy for granted planning to spring surprise character revelations for them later but let's face it, this series probably isn't going to last long enough for that, their creepness is so entrenched now.

The idea of filling in some background detail on the parents is a good one in general, as that's an area where the classic stories are famously vague (and changeable to suit whatever circumstances a specific story required). What, exactly, IS it that Fred Andrews, Hal Cooper, and Forsythe Jones (a.k.a. Jonesy) do for a living, anyway? I mean, of ALL the parents in the classic stories, only ONE has a very specific occupation/career -- Ricky Mantle, newspaper publisher.  It's a detail of those other characters that hardly ever comes into play except in the vaguest sort of way. Fred Andrews... doesn't he work in an office or something? Well, it's not too specific, but I guess it eliminates a lot of career possibilities. But what does he DO in that office every day, and what sort of business does he work for? It's never really gone into beyond some stories where something non-specific like "Andrews, where are those reports?! I need them TODAY!!" comes up in the plot. Mr. Lodge is "a businessman" and a millionaire, but what is the nature of his business, and how did he make his fortune? The latter is never really answered in classic stories, and the former is changeable to suit whatever type of business is relevant to the plot of a specific story. In effect, Lodge owns any and every type of business enterprise imaginable, without limits, and businesses that he is involved in unsuspected to the general reader of Archie Comics can show up at any time that it makes an interesting story connection. Since we don't know what type of business office Fred Andrews works in, or what he really does there, why NOT say that the office he works for is one of Mr. Lodge's companies? It's an interesting wrinkle.


One thing that bugs me a little is that whenever there's some new take on ARCHIE, Mr. Lodge gets a crap deal as some kind of sinister manipulative power-monger, or at the very least, his motives and character are suspect and questionable. It's happened to one degree or another in To Riverdale and Back Again, The Married Life, and now the reboot. That's the complete reverse of classic Archie, in which Hiram Lodge is almost uniformly shown to be the type of millionaire business magnate who is smart but fair, honest and of unimpeachable character. He's a good father, gives back to the community, helps out the younger generation (even if he sometimes takes a dim view of some of them as individuals). Often the classic stories show some situation in which the kids point out some way his business is negatively impacting the community, and he always takes corrective action to resolve the problem once he's made aware of it, because he cares. He's not one of those cold unfeeling types who feels himself above everyone, despite the obvious gap in wealth. He's never shown as motivated by pure greed or underhanded in his dealings with anyone.


Most of the few stories that show Mr. Mantle seem to portray him as a journalist of integrity, as well as good character. It's a bit facile to turn him into a sly schemer in order to try to draw some parallels with his son's many character faults.

Nothing, really. Two titles are plenty. It would start to get to be overkill.

It's worth noting that the above story marks a high water mark (or extreme of the pendulum swing) for Crazy Betty stories. They may have realized afterwards that that one story seemed to have crossed some kind of invisible line. With the April 1966 first issue of BETTY AND ME, the pendulum would begin swinging back in the other direction, ultimately by the late 1960s establishing more-or-less permanently the "Sweet Betty Cooper".

I bet they got a lot of letters on that story, both from readers who LOVED it and those who HATED it.

The amazing thing is that the story passed the Comics Code Authority without any problems, apparently. We can probably attribute that to the fact that the comic intent and humorous drawing in any Archie story would tend disarm any serious consideration on the part of the Code's censors regarding what, in factual terms, is taking place in the story -- attempted murder on several counts, Betty's disregard for Jughead as "collateral damage", and the fact that she receives no punishment in the end (or psychiatric help) -- things that seem like they would not have been allowed in a "serious" comic book story. It's worth mentioning in passing that John L. Goldwater was not only instrumental in the formation of the CCA, but served as its Chairman for many years. Archie Comics was the last of the long-time comics publishers to finally abandon the Comics Code in February 2011, following the example of Marvel and DC Comics which had ceased to subscribe to it even earlier.

The edicts of the original Comics Code that the story possibly violates are as follows:

Quote
CODE FOR EDITORIAL MATTER
General standards—Part A
(1) Crimes shall never be presented in such a way as to create sympathy for the criminal, to promote distrust of the forces of law and justice, or to inspire others with a desire to imitate criminals.
(2) No comics shall explicitly present the unique details and methods of a crime.
(3) Policemen, judges, Government officials and respected institutions shall never be presented in such a way as to create disrespect for established authority.
(4) If crime is depicted it shall be as a sordid and unpleasant activity.
(5) Criminals shall not be presented so as to be rendered glamorous or to occupy a position which creates a desire for emulation.
(6) In every instance good shall triumph over evil and the criminal punished for his misdeeds.

Although it's pretty clear from Betty's conversation in the story with Jughead that she admits to trying to murder Archie, the script and artwork is circumspect in not actually showing Betty in the actual commission of said attempted murder. For example, we never see her lurking behind the fallen tree with an ax, or pushing the wagon downhill aimed at Archie, or dropping the flower pot from a window or rooftop above, so that may have helped in avoiding any closer scrutiny of the story by the CCA. They successfully avoided CCA General Standards - Part A2. Of course, she never uses the words "kill" or "murder" in her threats (of which Jughead's testimony would be admissible in court), and if Jughead can't offer any actual eyewitness proof that he saw Betty fell that tree, push that wagon load of bricks downhill, or drop that flower pot, then maybe she could never be convicted. But WE know, don't we?

The ULTIMATE "Crazy Betty" story -- from ARCHIE #156, July 1965 -- "Woman Scorned"  --  Because you can't get much crazier than attempted murder.

Quote from: daren on May 16, 2016, 03:55:12 AM



Sorry it's so blurry, like I said it's like a logo so it's small.

I'm glad you posted that, Daren, because it gives me an excuse to talk about these little mini-scenes (taken directly from the interior artwork of one of the stories appearing in that issue) that Archie used to use as a regular feature atop their title logos in the 1960s. I'm not entirely certain exactly when that cover policy was discontinued, but sometime before the 1970s. I absolutely LOVE those!

I believe that small image falls under the category of what's known (for indexing purposes) as a "vignette". Usually that refers to something like "floating heads", for instance on a cover of THE AVENGERS that shows a pitched battle between two (or a small group) of characters, surrounded by the floating heads of other Avengers characters not directly involved in that scene. But I believe the term would apply to these small "preview" images that Archie Comics placed above their logos, beginning (as best I can determine) in July 1965 with ARCHIE #156. In all cases, the small images on those covers was taken directly from the interior artwork of a story appearing in that issue.



What is significant (other than the start of that "vignette image above the logo" policy) about that particular comic? It contains the following story (which is detailed at length in Bart Beatty's book, Twelve Cent Archie):

QuoteWhen Archie breaks a date with Betty again, she snaps and decides to murder him. After Betty makes several attempts on Archie's life, involving falling trees and wagons full of bricks, Jughead suggests that Archie try to pacify her in "Woman Scorned"!

But I digress. This really probably belongs in another thread. I've just posted the full story "Woman Scorned" over on the Crazy Betty thread, if you care to take a look at it.

Quote from: daren on May 16, 2016, 03:46:12 AM
Actually it's a little known fact that upon hearing that comment Chuck became so embittered against his father that he renounced sports altogether to become a henpecked cartoonist.

"henpecked cartoonist" ... I like that concept (because of course there's some truth in it). It occurs to me that with some persistence and a little luck, Chuck Clayton could parlay that idea into a semi-autobiographical daily strip that might do well with a larger audience (if his gag-writing skills are up to it).

Back to the cover. Certainly taking the cover scene out of context of the story itself, and using the dramatic contrast of showing a (presumably hurt) Chuck in the foreground of the panel as Archie and his father pass by totally unaware makes Harry Clayton's comment seem much worse.

Quote from: daren on May 16, 2016, 03:38:25 AM
Not so much the novelty wearing off (though, it helped) as the series not living up to the promise of the first couple of issues. It seemed like big things would happen with the Lodge corporation moving in and Archie and his friends trying to get jobs working for them, I thought they would all become more and more involved with that. There should be some exciting development like that to carry the action through and the main five need something that brings them together, they're more interesting as a unit. Instead the stories are just rambling on from one character to another and I find myself not caring about anyone very much...and some of the characterization from the classic stories doesn't work. It's okay for classic Archie to be accident prone without showing that he's, you know, on meds or getting some other professional help, because it's not done realistically. This comic IS realistic and he and his parents just come across as so irresponsible for not reining him in. 

Call it what you will. Some of the initial bloom is off the rose as people seem to be beginning to take a closer critical evaluation of the reboot and various details about how the individual aspects of art and story (especially) relate to the whole. Your criticisms being different than mine (or others') notwithstanding. I think there was just a groundswell of initial enthusiasm that carried a lot of readers along that blinded them to some details about exactly how things were working (or not, as may be the case) with the reboot. The "decompressed storytelling" certainly delayed that assessment on a lot of readers' parts.

Good observations.

Quote from: invisifan on May 16, 2016, 02:44:29 AM

Quote from: DeCarlo Rules on May 16, 2016, 02:31:18 AM

Quote from: invisifan on May 16, 2016, 02:29:38 AM
It occurred to me that Kelly has an obvious (for her generation) solution to her make-up problem, but it will also be complicated by being a vampire in an unexpected way ...

You just enjoy being cryptic, don't you? 

It's fun at times but there's always an answer ... Oh, and mushrooms btw

Perhaps if you just explained how mushrooms connect with makeup (and the fact that being a vampire, Kelly can't see her reflection to apply the makeup), it would be clearer. Even when you supply the supposed answer to being cryptic, you're still being cryptic. I can never tell how many levels there are involved.

Seems to me the solution to Kelly's (and Jess') vampire makeup problem is staring them in the face. Or rather, the solution is for them to stare at each others' face, and each do the other's makeup. Problem solved.

Quote from: invisifan on May 16, 2016, 02:29:38 AM
It occurred to me that Kelly has an obvious (for her generation) solution to her make-up problem, but it will also be complicated by being a vampire in an unexpected way ...

You just enjoy being cryptic, don't you? 

Quote from: PTF on May 15, 2016, 11:27:10 PM
It takes place in Pennsylvania. Home of giant cracked bells, angry bird fans who pelt Santa Claus with snowballs, and where all cheese steaks are manufactured.

I can't remember the name of the college. I think everything in the first issue seemed to take place on or near the campus. Didn't realize what state it was (but haven't read #2 yet).

Quote from: BettyReggie on May 15, 2016, 09:51:26 PM
Stewart & Adam look cute. Does this comic take place in RiverDale?

No, they can't use Riverdale. It's published by Sitcomics, not Archie Comics, and Riverdale is undoubtedly trademarked by ACP (and the CW).

Sunday I read a bunch of JUGHEAD & FRIENDS DIGESTs. Issues # 29, 30, 32, 33, 37 and 38. That brings me to the end of that title's run, but I'm still missing issues #3, 7, 13, 23, 25, 26, 31, 34, 35, and 36.

I also read about another 70 pages in ARCHIE BY BOB MONTANA: THE COMPLETE NEWSPAPER COMICS 1960-1963, bringing me up to page 202, with exactly 70 pages left to go (hopefully I'll finish that today). I've already ordered the next (and last to date) volume of this series to be released by IDW/LoAC, 1963-1965, and should have it in day or two.

Quote from: irishmoxie on May 15, 2016, 10:11:04 PM
Adam Hughes draws good girls? Had me fooled.

Everyone seems to initially misinterpret the expression "good girl art" when they encounter it, and sometimes that confusion persists for some time thereafter. It's an old comic book collector-originated term. What it is, is not "GOOD GIRL art", it's "good GIRL ART". Not artwork featuring girls who are good, but artwork which is good featuring girls. Whether the girls featured in the art are good or bad is immaterial, the only thing important is that the art is good and the subject of interest is the girls. Certain comic book artists like Adam Hughes develop a  reputation as 'good girl artists' because while any artist may have a reputation as a good artist overall within the fandom of comic books, particular artists like Hughes are in demand specifically in large part for their facility in drawing girls in particular. They are the good "girl artists".

Now that the ranks of comic book artists are beginning to swell with greater numbers of female comics artists, in decades to come there's bound to be further confusion of the term 'good girl art'. Take for example DC artist Amanda Connor. She's a good artist, and she's obviously a girl (well, a woman, but let's not split hairs, she's a female artist). She's also primarily known for her facility at drawing girls, and she draws them well.  Amanda Connor is both a good "artist girl", and a good "girl artist".

The term "good girl art" got further confused in the 1990s, with the proliferation of what became known as the "bad girl" subgenre of comics, in which -- exactly the opposite of  the term 'good girl art' -- it IS the girls who are being referred to as bad. But the art is often bad as well, so that really does compound the confusion. Amanda Connor is good artist, but she's also known for drawing the "bad girl" Harley Quinn -- and also the "good girl", Power Girl. So she's equally a good "bad girl" artist, and a good "good girl" artist. So much confusion.

Amanda's a pretty good cartoonist. I had mentioned to Dan Parent when I saw him at a convention last year that if ACP was seeking 'big name' contemporary comic book artists for its reboot, they should have attempted to draft Amanda Connor, and he replied "They tried."