Quote from: invisifan on May 13, 2016, 03:47:41 PM

Quote from: DeCarlo Rules on May 10, 2016, 07:52:05 AM

Quote from: invisifan on May 10, 2016, 05:49:38 AMFinally started Millar's "Jupiter's Legacy" ... fairly typical Millar  (which is to say pretty good)

I liked the prequel, Jupiter's Circle, even better in terms of the writing, although it's not as consistent having more than one artist.

It was good, but it invoked "Before Watchmen" for me, with the Justice League/DC heroes standing in for Charlton's ... and while Millar is good (even great at times) the overall comparison is not in his favour (though he makes a strong effort) ...

I sort of wished I'd been able to read the whole thing in the proper chronological sequence, though. I believe there's still a third book to Jupiter's Circle, and it's been so long since the original Jupiter's Legacy came out that I've lost the thread a little, so I may wait until Jupiter's Circle is completed, then go back and read Book 1 of Jupiter's Legacy again before going on to Book 2. JLA simulacra (like Squadron Supreme) is such a common trope in comics now that I can't even see it as Moore's Minutemen, or whatever the abortive Silver Age group was called. Millar's characters don't really live in that Watchmen-like world, where Dr. Manhattan was the only real superpowered character, they have all the cornball Silver Age-y JLA-type adventures fighting alien invasions and supervillains, and they even have their own 'Teen Titans'. Obviously done with love and affection for those original comics.

"One girl's trash is another girl's treasure." It's funny because it's not unlike Archie's car, which many people comment on as belonging in a junkyard, but which Archie believes has "plenty of good mileage left in this model". Both of them feel like the object of their scavenging may be a little dinged and dented, and a second-hand castoff, but is still salvageable with a little bit of elbow grease, repair and maintenance. That makes Betty and Archie both American Pickers.

There is a fine line between preserving cultural artifacts and hoarding. Unless you're acting as the agent of some greater infrastructure that will outlive you, the accumulation of your life's obsession can all be for naught if there's no continuity when you're no longer around. Where will this vast accumulation of data go so that it can be of later historical benefit to anyone? If you can't work with like-minded individuals to organize the maintenance and continuity of your work, you can't be sure that what you leave behind won't be wiped out in a moment by someone who sees no value in it (that heart attack could hit at any moment, what then?). Better to enjoy the infotainment available to you while you can than to obsess over accumulating it to the imagined benefit of some hypothetical someone else that might care, when you can't really be sure that person or persons exists. I have every expectation that when I die, my collection will be dispersed to the four winds, cared about not for the intrinsic value that I find in it, but only for whatever financial gain it can offer to someone else by selling it. No doubt that many (in all probability, most) of the items in my collection may be deemed by someone else as worthless, or very nearly so, in strictly monetary terms. Hopefully, when the time arrives I'll begin selling it off piecemeal, deriving for myself whatever financial reward for my collecting efforts over my lifetime that I can -- but I can't know that for sure.

Quote from: irishmoxie on May 12, 2016, 05:06:59 PM
Continuity could mean a continuous storyline across multiple issues. Consistency could mean the same 5 page comedic stories with a clear resolution at the end--- basically the old Archie. When you picked up a digest, you knew pretty much what you were getting i.e. comfort food.

Hooray for comfort food!

One thing that really annoys me is when I go to a restaurant specifically because I know they have a certain type of food I like, but if I get there and they say "Sorry, we're only serving __________ at this time", I just turn around and leave rather than just take whatever they're offering. The reason I went THERE was to get what I was expecting, not whatever they happened to want to sell me when I got there.

On the other hand, if I want to read grounded, reality-based, continuity-driven comics I'd be going somewhere else for them. To me the words "Archie" and "reality" don't even belong in the same sentence together. If I wanted grounded, reality-based continuity stories I'd probably be looking for them on television, because that's one of the things that television is really good at (just don't ask them to adapt any comic books). Absent of any other elements, television would do a much better job of convincing me of its fictional reality. Comics are good at other things. They're better most of the time (because they've been doing it longer) than television and movies at creating fictional universes that aren't realistic, but still operate by their own internal logic or set of rules -- and those rules are not limited by anything but the writers' and artists' imaginations, or if working on previously established characters, by rules handed down like the passing of a torch. On occasion they can bend or break those previously-established rules, if it serves the story and makes it more entertaining. They can also mess it up if they don't know what they're doing, or if what they're trying to do isn't worth doing and is nothing more than change for change itself -- just an attempt to make something into something else, as different as possible. Fantasy and slapstick cartoon comedy are a couple of the things that comics can do as well, or more often better, than any other medium. Mundane reality, not so much. Not that it's impossible, but the specific subject matter chosen better be particularly compelling, and the writing and artwork better be damn convincing.

THE PHANTOM (Hermes Press, 2014-16) #1-6

Quote from: irishmoxie on May 12, 2016, 05:09:50 PM

Quote from: DeCarlo Rules on May 12, 2016, 02:30:50 PM

Quote from: invisifan on May 12, 2016, 06:49:19 AM

Quote from: Barbaric William Dreadbeard on May 12, 2016, 04:51:27 AM
Sell the company to Disney.

They already own Marvel ... would not be good for Archie — better off with IDW ...

I'll agree as far as better off with IDW ... but at this point Disney couldn't do any worse.

Why is Disney doing bad?

Disney couldn't do any worse at running Archie Comics than Archie Comics is doing running itself right now.

Which would actually mean Marvel, since what do the people at Disney know about running a comic book company?  That's why they farm the license for classic Disney comics (Mickey Mouse, Donald Duck, Uncle Scrooge) out to other companies -- and the fact that Disney farms its classic characters out to IDW and Fantagraphics in the U.S. tells you that the people at Marvel don't understand those kind of comics and have no experience publishing them (although other contemporary Disney licenses -- like Haunted Mansion -- DO get published by Marvel).

All of that said, Disney/Marvel could do no worse at publishing Archie Comics than Archie's doing. In many ways, New Riverdale, Archie Horror, and Dark Circle all seem like something that Marvel would publish if they owned the characters (although Marvel would publish everything on time, and probably pay creators more, so they could afford to hire whomever they wanted). Disney would take advantage of Marvel's expertise and clout in marketing, promotion and advertising, and have the deep pockets needed to underwrite any sort of projects involving the Archie characters that they had a notion to.

IDW has proven with their various reprint projects that they respect the characters and understand what their traditional appeal is, but that's the classic characters. ACP seems to have mostly given up on the idea of new classic Archie material, apart from just keeping the digests running for however long they're able to maintain them. They seem to have accepted the idea that the sun is setting on those too, so there's no real need to maintain a flow of new stories to feed future digests. They're only generating 20 new pages of classic Archie stories a month, and the digests are consuming something like 500 story pages a month, so the digests reprints will just continue to get more and more dated. They must see the end as not too far off, say 5 years or so.

Quote from: invisifan on May 12, 2016, 06:49:19 AM

Quote from: Barbaric William Dreadbeard on May 12, 2016, 04:51:27 AM
Sell the company to Disney.

They already own Marvel ... would not be good for Archie — better off with IDW ...

I'll agree as far as better off with IDW ... but at this point Disney couldn't do any worse.

Quote from: invisifan on May 12, 2016, 07:00:16 AM
No, you're missing the point — I don't care about any of that (I'd like them to state definitively if they are the same continuity or not but it isn't a deal breaker either way), what I hope they don't do is introduce fantasy elements (witches or whatever) to their main line (ie. not Dark Circle/Horror) after they've made the reboot a much more grounded, reality based, continuity driven set of books ... it's all about consistency (which Archie has never been strong on — and for Classic Archie it didn't matter, but it's what the reboot needs to succeed).

Keep the fantasy elements OUT of Archie? It's the ONLY thing that's kept me reading Jughead this long. The lack of that in Archie is exactly what makes it so boring to me (well, that and the fact that very little actually happened in the couple of issues I did read). I'd be willing to trade the fantasy elements for perhaps a seriously funny New Riverdale comic book, but that option doesn't even seem to be on the table.

Isn't continuity and consistency pretty much the same thing?

Quotethey've made the reboot a much more grounded, reality based, continuity driven set of books

That's a darned fine concise summary of everything I hate about them. That and the lack of FUNNY. I mean, apart from the artwork up to this point.

Quote from: invisifan on May 12, 2016, 04:22:47 AM
This one really bothers me if it's going ahead the way it implies —

You lost me there, but maybe it would have helped if you summarized what you thought was being implied (and by what). That ARCHIE and JUGHEAD aren't precisely inhabiting the same universe? Um... why is that important, exactly? It's not a superhero universe (except when superheroes appear in Jughead). But it's no different than when Pureheart the Powerful appeared in LIFE WITH ARCHIE, but not in the other Archie comics being published at the same time. True, the readership is older now, but they'll just have to learn to live with it.

Quote from: invisifan on May 12, 2016, 04:22:47 AMTo be successfully there has to be a tone, continuity and consistency across everything ... the new Riverdale (comics) seemed to be aiming for that — take the basic characters and have a consistent high school comedy/romance with continuity and it seemed to be working (although reconciling Archie & Jughead has been difficult — easier to call them separate realities) but it's a "real world" drama — the magic is (was) reserved for CHAoS & AWA and maybe Dark Circle ... bringing Sabrina in as a broom-riding witch? it breaks the whole thing ...

I see a few possibilities here — they do as implied and people lose interest, or Jughead spins off in it's own reality as a third Sabrina title (hopefully before it drags down Archie), or, as Jughead is now known for —  and the writer did say he would be following Chip's lead — the Sabrina encounter becomes a dream sequence (previous ones have figured prominently on covers before) which might disappoint/alienate some people ...

Okay, so it's easier to call them separate realities. Why is that some kind of problem? Readers are going to lose interest if ARCHIE and JUGHEAD don't have a crossover story?? Is this a dealbreaker for anyone but you?

Jughead becomes a Sabrina title? Where are you getting that from? Did I miss something in the interview where Ryan says that Sabrina is the co-star of the title now? I just thought he said he liked Sabrina, that's all -- by way of explaining why he couldn't wait to put her in there.

But more to the point, why would the people at ACP running things all of a sudden turn into continuity freaks, or assume that's what the bulk of their readership is composed of? I really think the intersecting set of superhero universe fans (read: continuity freaks) who are also New Riverdale fans is pretty minimal in the grand scheme of things. Sure it's possible to read and enjoy both but if you're going to expect Archie Comics to follow the same hidebound logic as superhero comics, I think you're barking up the wrong tree. Archie Comics has always been loose (to say the very least) in its treatment of continuity, and the fact that the main cast has to be forever stuck in a time loop repeating the same grade in high school kind of makes that approach the only real way to go.

A too-realistic Archie can lead in only one direction, just as LIFE WITH ARCHIE lead to THE DEATH OF ARCHIE. (Just to be clear, I mean it leads to falling sales resulting in cancellation. Reality is not a friend to the basic underlying presumptions behind the Archie cast of characters, and it for sure isn't a friend to Jughead. In the long run you can only sell that to the older hardcore Archie fans, too small an audience by itself.)  I think you're the only one I've heard say something along the lines of "I can't possibly enjoy more than one of the New Riverdale titles unless you can give me the assurance that they are all in continuity with each other. Either I like ARCHIE or JUGHEAD, but not both if they're not in the same universe with each other. I better start seeing some cross-title continuity."

I think I like the Derek Charm cover best (with its attempt to appeal to those that gave up on the series earlier because they didn't like Erica's artwork - "It's kinda like a BRAND NEW #1 even though it's really ISSUE #9")     I actually hadn't noticed that the first time I looked at the cover previews (too busy studying the artwork), so now I understand why @irishmoxie had the impression that it was some kind of re-reboot. Hey, whatever it takes to get a reader who had given up on the title to pick it up again, right? It's kind of tongue-in-cheek humorous, while sending the message. The fact that it's only the Derek Charm cover that has that little blurb displayed indicates that they're telling you the artwork on the cover is what you can expect to see on the inside as well (variant covers make this confusing to people). So what that little blurb translates to is "Pick me up and look at me - I've got a whole new look!". I guess long experience in seeing every type of sales gimmick in the comic book industry makes it easier for me to "read the code" for what they're doing here.

I also like the artwork on Derek's cover better than the others. The other ones aren't bad, though.

Quote from: irishmoxie on May 11, 2016, 11:39:23 AM
I started reading The Walking Dead. I've read the first 3 issues so far. It definitely likes to end on cliffhangers to keep you reading. As far as being "heavy" and stressful it's not too bad so far. The zombies are drawn more comical than scary. Maybe the females like the family man aspect or maybe they just think Glenn is hot. 

I'm just not much of a fan of horror comics that are ongoing series. I like shorter, done-in-one stories or miniseries (or anthologies of shorts like the classic EC horror comics). So far I've considered AWA and ChAoS as miniseries (they come out so infrequently that they don't make much of a dent in my comic budget or reading time), and I don't expect them to go on for substantial runs. Ongoing series like the 1970s Marvel monster comics (Tomb of Dracula, Monster of Frankenstein, Werewolf By Night, Man-Thing, etc.) were more like "monster-hero" series ("monster-villain" in the case of Dracula) than horror. Even if it were an extended saga, but the author obviously had a predetermined story structure for moving it forward over long arcs, with an ultimate ending he was working toward, I might consider it. But The Walking Dead is obviously much too successful for that to be the case. The humans have no hope of any final triumph in their situation, unless the comic were to start sliding in sales, in which case the writer might then decide to invent a conclusion just to satisfy the long-time readers. The idea of an ongoing series where the characters just constantly struggle for survival against the bleakest odds with no hope of winning just depresses me.

Quote from: nuageo on May 11, 2016, 05:22:42 PM
There are 1 or 2 old classic stories in each Archie reboot, Jughead reboot and Betty and Veronica reboot (probably)...

- Replace these 1 or 2 old classic stories by a new classic story of 6-7 pages.(art and story by Fernando Ruiz) 
So, a new reboot story of 21 pages and a new classic story of 6-7 pages in the same issue. 

And almost everyone will be happy now...

I'd be happy with 21 pages of classic story and 6-7 of reboot story...

I get all the digests, but 20 pages of new classic stories a month just isn't enough to cover all the characters I'd like to be seeing. An additional 6-7 pages of classic story every month just isn't enough to make me want to buy 21 pages of New Riverdale story, and I suspect there's a fair number of fans of classic Archie that would feel the same way.

FCBD 2016 PINK PANTHER
FCBD 2016 DC SUPER HERO GIRLS
FCBD 2016 CBLDF DEFEND COMICS
Will Eisner's THE SPIRIT #10
FCBD 2015 THE PHANTOM, FCBD 2016 THE PHANTOM
JUGHEAD & FRIENDS DIGEST #24
ARCHIE BY BOB MONTANA: THE COMPLETE DAILY COMICS 1960-1963 HC (Just started.)

ARCHIE'S JOKE BOOK #187 (Aug. 1973)
ARCHIE'S JOKE BOOK #251 (Dec. 1978)
ARCHIE'S T.V. LAUGH-OUT #46 (Feb. 1977) coverless
ARCHIE'S T.V. LAUGH-OUT #96 (Aug. 1984)
BETTY #43 (Nov. 1996) - "One Brief Moment", the ultimate Betty/Reggie shipping story
BETTY'S DIARY #2 (June 1986)
BETTY AND VERONICA SPECTACULAR (Archie Giant Series) #537 (June 1984)
BETTY AND VERONICA #60 (Feb. 1993)
LIFE WITH ARCHIE #143 (Mar. 1974)
LIFE WITH ARCHIE #197 (Sept. 1978)
THAT WILKIN BOY #29 (Sept. 1974)

MEET MISTY #5 (Aug. 1986) [STAR Comics/Marvel] - Interesting. Written and drawn a simple, retro style by Trina Robbins, it has a very "Katy Keene" feel to it, with virtually every panel crediting a reader for contributing the clothing design for the character(s) in that panel. Given that this was only the 5th issue, you have to wonder whether a lot of those reader names weren't just made up. I'd been aware of the existence of this comic from the time it came out, but had never really read it. It turns out that the teenage Misty of the title lives with her Aunt Millie, who is actually an older & heavier version of Millie Collins (last names are never mentioned, but she's married by the time of this series; her husband is seen in a few panels, but never named) of MILLIE THE MODEL fame. There was a short story in the middle of the book called "Millie's Memories" where she goes to clean her old clothes out of her closet, and spends a couple of pages reminiscing about all the times she first wore various outfits (which are each illustrated in their own flashback panels, showing how she looked in them when she was young). Clicker (Millie's fashion photographer boyfriend in her old series) is shown in one panel, and Millie thinks "I wonder if I should have married him?" She eventually donates all her old outfits to a thrift store, but then just as she's having pangs about missing those old memories, Misty and her friends show up wearing some of her old outfits.

Quote from: Ronnie on May 10, 2016, 06:29:47 PM
Sort of understand what you're trying to say but it's not my job to debug other people's stuff when it should already work.

It's also pretty sad when the 3rd largest city in the country that should have access to this and it doesn't.

Says a lot about Chicago.

There's no real evidence that there's anything wrong with the app that needs debugging. I might add that it's not Hoopla's job to demand that any of its participating libraries offer any particular titles, if the library chooses not to. Hoopla did not develop the service out of pure altruism, so that means the libraries pay for access to the titles available, and it's likely that each publisher's titles that a library chooses to offer its members involves a separate fee paid by the library to Hoopla (just like they have to buy the printed books that fill the library's shelves). The Chicago Public Library has access to Hoopla's titles if you were able to register with Hoopla using your library card there. If the Chicago Public Library decided not to pay Hoopla the the fee necessary to offer the Archie titles (which are available to any participating partner of HooplaDigital) to its members (or simply hasn't gotten around to adding them yet), that's hardly Hoopla's fault.