From the sounds of it, the classic Archie would have wrapped up the all the same plot points in 2 or 3 shorts of 6 pages or so.

Quote from: irishmoxie on May 15, 2016, 02:54:41 PM

Quote from: DeCarlo Rules on May 15, 2016, 01:28:01 AM

Quote from: daren on May 14, 2016, 10:03:10 PM
This last issue was awesome (again!)


Jeff Shultz's parody of the Archie main five in their famous pose:

Which is what parallel counterpart of which?  I didn't see that at all.  I guess Stewart's a little bit of an Archie/Jughead mashup and Kelly's sort of a Melody/? mashup, but I didn't see any attempt to satirize the Archie main cast there in any way.

It's the pose of 2 people fighting over one person. Like Betty and Veronica fighting over Archie.

It's hard for me to recognize. It looks like four people fighting over two people (Kelly and Jess). Or maybe it's Stewart, Vera and Kelly versus Adam and Trevor, fighting over Jess. At any rate, it's a group fight with so many people involved. Maybe Sitcomics just invented the "Love Hexagon"?

Quote from: invisifan on May 15, 2016, 06:02:48 PM

Quote from: DeCarlo Rules on May 15, 2016, 05:34:51 PM
I know Mark Waid had previous experience doing a few Archie stories way back when ("Moose!" and one or two others I've seen reprinted), but it's curious to me why ACP didn't just hire someone 'big name' that had a previous track record of putting a lot of humor/comedy into their scripts (at least, on some of their work... I've read a LOT of Waid's stuff, and never really picked up on much comedy in any of the series I've read by him). I'm thinking of somebody like Dan Slott over at Marvel (and of course, they're not going to get Dan Slott, but someone like him, and there are more than a few people like that working in mainstream comics). So I have to believe that wasn't any sort of primary consideration on ACP's part. Maybe if someone like Rex Lindsey was drawing Waid's scripts they'd at least come across as funnier.

Waid was already doing the Fox for their Dark Circle line, so I guess it was an easy association — and as Dark Circle goes that's pretty light stuff ...

QuoteI'm not too interested in a rom-com or whatever the current subgenre thing is now. I really only have the vaguest idea of what that really is. It's not a genre I've ever really followed.

Romantic comedy — more of a movie genre really, not one that's normally sustained over a long term ...

Quote"Sitcom" punctuated with a good dose of slapstick now and then is really what I want from an Archie comic. But that can be like in a TV series like Community, Parks and Recreation, 30 Rock, something like that. That and cute girls, but not just "good girl art" of the Adam Hughes type. I mean sexy/cartoony/cute/innocent type girls, like... maybe something like the Bruce Timm/Darwyn Cooke style.

Is the Darwyn Cooke reference coincidental?  You know he died  literally yesterday ...

I had not heard. He will be sorely missed. The comics industry needed more talents of his caliber. I would consider him one of the most serious cartoonists of this generation.


And I'd forgotten about Waid doing THE FOX momentarily. Now that I think about it that was funnier than the Archie reboot, but Waid's role in that was somewhat different. The Fox is really Dean Haspiel's brainchild (although Waid was a sounding board that he bounced his ideas off). Waid would then come in after Haspiel "wrote" the visual story, and add his dialogue and captions. So Haspiel is Kirby here, and Waid is Lee... In other words, the genesis of each issue did not begin with Waid sending Haspiel a script to draw from. Haspiel's written some of his own stuff in the past, so he's (at least) co-writer on THE FOX, although not the dialoguer.

Quote from: irishmoxie on May 15, 2016, 04:32:57 PM
The new Riverdale comic/Archie reboot reads like a YA novel with all the "teen" slang and angst. There are moments of comedy in there but it's mostly in the art, not the dialogue i.e. Archie setting ice cream on fire, Archie being flattened by a bulldozer.

The Riverdale TV show feels a lot like The OC (with the new Betty being Marissa) and a little of Dawson's Creek (with the whole dating your teacher thing).

"Angst" = Get me outta here. That is so last century for comic books. Exactly what I'm trying to escape FROM by coming to Archie Comics. If I wanted angst, there are a dozen different X-Men and Spider-Man comics to pick through.

Say whatever nice things you want to about Fiona Staples, but she's basically an illustrator, not a cartoonist. Invisifan talked about consistency, and those scenes just plain DO NOT work. They stand out like a sore thumb as not consistent with the tone of the rest of the story, and I just stare at them in disbelief that they're even trying to pass that off as comedy. They are really picking the wrong artists if they're expecting to toss those things into a script on rare occasions and think it's going to work. I haven't really studied Veronica Fish's art beyond just some brief surface scans, but if anything I find it less attractive than Staples' work. She might even turn out to be a better cartoonist than Fiona, but I just don't like the overall look of it. Possibly Derek Charm can pull something like that off. I hope so. Fingers crossed. His style is both attractive and cartoony enough.

Quote from: invisifan on May 15, 2016, 01:00:51 PM
Sitcoms on TV are on a decline — the ones that make it aren't as mundane as Archie seems after 75 years ... and as for more general "teen" shows, "Glee" and "High School Musical" showed they can work, but also sucked the air out of the room as far as competition — they also showed it's far to easy to overdo it, or do it wrong, so no one wants to try.

@DCR — I'm saying it needs a consistent feel — throwing in actual magic stuff ruins the feel they are trying for, comedy wouldn't do that — there's already some in there, and it could be cranked up quite a bit and be enjoyable ... but it should be grounded in reality since that's the tone they've set; if you want a magic/fantasy/superhero series, start a new comic in another Archiverse like they have for ChAoS & AWA

I know Mark Waid had previous experience doing a few Archie stories way back when ("Moose!" and one or two others I've seen reprinted), but it's curious to me why ACP didn't just hire someone 'big name' that had a previous track record of putting a lot of humor/comedy into their scripts (at least, on some of their work... I've read a LOT of Waid's stuff, and never really picked up on much comedy in any of the series I've read by him). I'm thinking of somebody like Dan Slott over at Marvel (and of course, they're not going to get Dan Slott, but someone like him, and there are more than a few people like that working in mainstream comics). So I have to believe that wasn't any sort of primary consideration on ACP's part. Maybe if someone like Rex Lindsey was drawing Waid's scripts they'd at least come across as funnier.


I'm not too interested in a rom-com or whatever the current subgenre thing is now. I really only have the vaguest idea of what that really is. It's not a genre I've ever really followed.


"Sitcom" punctuated with a good dose of slapstick now and then is really what I want from an Archie comic. But that can be like in a TV series like Community, Parks and Recreation, 30 Rock, something like that. That and cute girls, but not just "good girl art" of the Adam Hughes type. I mean sexy/cartoony/cute/innocent type girls, like... maybe something like the Bruce Timm/Darwyn Cooke style.

Quote from: terrence12 on May 15, 2016, 12:32:40 PM

Quote from: DeCarlo Rules on May 15, 2016, 12:00:10 PM
The reboot is comedy? Guess I missed it, or maybe they just left it out of the first 2 issues. Those were the only ones I read. There's a little bit in Jughead, but 'way too little. Can't just be me, because when Jonathan was commenting on the Riverdale Podcast about what he felt was lacking in ARCHIE #8, he specifically mentioned the lack of comedy. I guess maybe all the comedy must have occurred (if you say so) between issues 3 and 7, but it seems like an odd way to run a comic book.

Well yeah the archie reboot comic is comedy but has a tints of drama in it .

Seriously, terrence, you are the first person I've read to even mention the humor, never mind to characterize it as a comedy overall. I certainly didn't find that to be the case with the first two issues.

Quote from: spazaru on May 15, 2016, 12:22:16 PM

Quote from: DeCarlo Rules on May 15, 2016, 12:00:10 PM

Quote from: terrence12 on May 15, 2016, 11:33:11 AM

Quote from: DeCarlo Rules on May 15, 2016, 11:22:44 AM
Why ACP would make an Archie series without laughs is basically what's been bugging me since the reboot. Since a lot of people seem to be fine with it (indeed, better than fine - they seem to prefer it that way), I've stopped questioning it. I'll never understand it, but apparently that's what people want.

Yes because this archie reboot has the element of comedy in it with a bit of drama including jughead.So why can't they make a sitcom instead with a bit of drama.Heck why would poeple want a archie series without comedy.

The reboot is comedy? Guess I missed it, or maybe they just left it out of the first 2 issues. Those were the only ones I read. There's a little bit in Jughead, but 'way too little. Can't just be me, because when Jonathan was commenting on the Riverdale Podcast about what he felt was lacking in ARCHIE #8, he specifically mentioned the lack of comedy. I guess maybe all the comedy must have occurred (if you say so) between issues 3 and 7, but it seems like an odd way to run a comic book.

Comedy is in the eye of the beholder.  I've found comedy sprinkled throughout all the issues.  I pointed out to Jonathan a gag I thought he missed in the latest issue and he said he did miss it and that he was in a grumpy mood when he read it and that he would give it another try.  Hopefully he'll let us know what he thinks after he does.

Well, terrence surprised me. Nobody really seems to mention anything about the comedy in any of their posts, and invisifan seems to be praising it for the qualities most diametrically opposed to that... grounded, reality-based, continuity-driven etc., all the things you'd associate with drama. He wants to keep the fantasy out of it, because that would seem to spoil any grounded, realistic, dramatic suspension of disbelief for him (and yet, he reads superhero comics, and they have the fantasy element, generally without comedy). I guess outright slapstick comedy would spoil the grounded realism as well. People seem to be liking it specifically for the drama/continuity, unless I'm completely misreading people's comments. I don't mind seeing a little bit of that thrown in here and there just for the sake of contrast and to break things up a little, but it's not what I read Archie Comics for. It was okay just for LIFE WITH ARCHIE, I guess, because the whole point of that was everything about it was different from the 'standard' Archie comic as possible. (Just like AFTERLIFE, the whole point is to contrast against the usual.)To be honest, I think LWA could have dialed back the angsty-ness a couple notches and thrown in a comedy bit or two now and then, just to remind people it actually was an Archie Comic. But then again, it wasn't a mainstream Archie comic book, or pretending to be one.

Quote from: terrence12 on May 15, 2016, 11:33:11 AM

Quote from: DeCarlo Rules on May 15, 2016, 11:22:44 AM
Why ACP would make an Archie series without laughs is basically what's been bugging me since the reboot. Since a lot of people seem to be fine with it (indeed, better than fine - they seem to prefer it that way), I've stopped questioning it. I'll never understand it, but apparently that's what people want.

Yes because this archie reboot has the element of comedy in it with a bit of drama including jughead.So why can't they make a sitcom instead with a bit of drama.Heck why would poeple want a archie series without comedy.

The reboot is comedy? Guess I missed it, or maybe they just left it out of the first 2 issues. Those were the only ones I read. There's a little bit in Jughead, but 'way too little. Can't just be me, because when Jonathan was commenting on the Riverdale Podcast about what he felt was lacking in ARCHIE #8, he specifically mentioned the lack of comedy. I guess maybe all the comedy must have occurred (if you say so) between issues 3 and 7, but it seems like an odd way to run a comic book.

Why ACP would make an Archie series without laughs is basically what's been bugging me since the reboot. Since a lot of people seem to be fine with it (indeed, better than fine - they seem to prefer it that way), I've stopped questioning it. I'll never understand it, but apparently that's what people want.

I have two even better questions. One, I've heard of being color blind, but why does Betty call Midge "Nancy"? And two, does anyone really put ketchup on carrot sticks?

Quote from: invisifan on May 15, 2016, 05:28:33 AM
Read the post again - he's not referring to Archie (specifically avoiding the main 5 in fact)

What about this one then? Mr. Lodge makes a joke about Archie's letters being junk mail (of course we know he doesn't like him), and he's an "a-hole"? It's just a joke! Betty laughed.

Same applies to Mr. Weatherbee using a picture of Archie painted on a punching bag as a surrogate for taking out his frustrations. He's an "a-hole" for that? It's just a freaking joke. I'm starting to think Daren is taking the world of Archie entirely too seriously.

Quote from: Original Sin on May 15, 2016, 06:56:02 AM
Daren is referring to Coach Clayton, who seems to care more about the trophy than his son's safety.

Well, obviously he's a school coach so he's got to be concerned about doing his job, and the school ski team. But in the context of the story, I don't think enough time had passed that they were really wondering whether Chuck had gotten hurt or was hopelessly lost somewhere. He was just late for where he was supposed to be, so they started to become concerned and went looking for him. At the time they're first starting to look, time is running out for getting him where he's supposed to be, but obviously if they'd spent more time searching for him and not finding him, they'd have started to become more concerned about him and less about the school winning some ski trophy. It's just that you don't get any sense of context from looking at the cover all by itself. I'd have to find the story again to check, but it's kind of thing that would have been noticeable in the story itself, I think.

Quote from: daren on May 14, 2016, 09:05:40 PM





My sole reason for watching this probable trainwreck.


(Well I also like the actors for Jason, Dilton, Coach Clayton and a few of the women, but I don't think I'd watch for just them. The first three aren't even going to be on much anyway unless Coach C has an affair with one of the moms...crap I can see it now  )

If I had to have a reason, it would probably be this.
(Cue soundtrack, as Archie sees Geraldine Grundy for the first time, walking down the halls of RHS (slo-mo medium shot as she slinks down the hall, students passing in BG, males stopping, turning heads; intercut with CU inserts of her face, legs, panning up to her breasts, hair flowing, shaking her head seductively), and David Lee Roth intones "I got it BAD, soooo bad... I'm Hot For Teacher!")


But I'm sure I can probably think up plenty of better excuses to look at beautiful women than rubbernecking at a train wreck.
That's like a totally Reggie move. "Oh my god, the humanity! It's a disaster!! Those poor, poor people!"
"Hey, no better place than a disaster scene to offer a comforting shoulder to all the hot chicks sure to be there!"

Quote from: daren on May 14, 2016, 09:50:51 PM
Yeah! An Archie avalanche of A-holes!

This one isn't a gag cover. How is Archie being an a-hole here? Searching for Chuck, who he knows is missing, together with Coach Kleats? Could it be you just pasted the wrong image link there? That story was just reprinted in a digest recently, and Archie is the genuine hero who saves a troublemaker (not seen on this cover) who cheats and rearranges the signs for the ski course trail in order lead his competition astray, but instead winds up endangering his own life through a miscalculation. The cheater's ski partner (not seen on this cover either) leaves him in the lurch to fend for himself while he races off to the finish line, but Archie stops to help him, regardless of the fact that it's delaying him from finishing the race, because helping someone in trouble is more important to him than winning a ski race. A particularly bad example that pointedly refutes your contention, if you're trying to make a point of Archie a-holeness. (The cheaters aren't seen on the cover because they wouldn't be recognized by Archie readers. Instead the cover shows a scene from earlier in the story, where the swapped trail signs cause Chuck to have an accident.)

Quote from: daren on May 14, 2016, 10:26:33 PM



You'd think he'd attack Reggie who had just insulted him instead of an injured girl but noooo.

That's why we have a thread discussing a Jughead/Veronica feud, and not one discussing a Jughead/Reggie "feud". Although you certainly can't deny that one exists, just like you can't deny an Archie/Reggie "feud" or a Moose/Reggie "feud". People don't usually characterize them that way, as feuds, but it's certainly some kind of antagonistic relationship. But that's Reggie's thing. He's the burr in everyone's saddle. We expect him to be contentious.

Quote from: daren on May 14, 2016, 10:26:33 PMStill...



Changeable little bugger isn't he?

(I don't think he's talking about Archie. I can believe he'd have a secret crush on Archie but I don't think he'd be delusional.)

While Jughead can often be caught admitting to Veronica's beauty (in passing, as he details her many other faults), would he characterize her as having "brains"? I don't think so. What about Archie, then? "Brains"? Jughead's his best pal, but I don't think so. So who's got the brains here? Jughead, that's who. It's a pretty weak attempt at humor, but he's referring to himself on both counts.