I have been reading Archie's Giant Comics 75th Anniversary Book recently.  In this book, there are story called "Mind Over Madder" from 1952.  This story is very homophobic.  In the story Archie and Reggie are bashing Jughead for not liking girls.  Archie says at one point "I think any guy that doesn't like gals should run, not walk to a psychologist."  In another panel Archie says "If our ancestors were like you they would never have married our ancestorettes! Nobody would ever have been born!  Reggie later says "Can y'imagine that guy!?! Trying to wipe out the whole human race!"  It is quite shocking to hear Archie rip apart his best friend like that.  That dialogue doesn't sound spontaneous-it sounds like something that would have taken a lot of planning.  Also, the premise seems wrong.  It doesn't seem to me that Archie and Reggie were planning to impregnate their dates that evening, so how were they helping the propagation of the species?
    One could easily excuse the story's original publication as simply sharing the bigotry common at the time of it's written but the decision to reprint it (when other much better stories would have worked perfectly) is deplorable. 

Quote from: Archiecomicxfan215 on February 04, 2017, 03:22:35 PM
i found this article.. how is riverdale different from archie comics


http://www.teenvogue.com/gallery/how-riverdale-is-different-from-archie-comics

IMO, except for having the Lodges divorced, every change the TV show made was for the worse.   That article made some mistakes-Betty and Veronica are certainly friends in the comic book.  It's one of the biggest jokes in the series.  IRL, they would consider their friendship more important than dating Archie and both dump him.  Also, Jughead is certainly a loner even in the comics. 

The show is certainly memorable through both episodes so far.  Even it weren't good, seeing the Archie characters on the TV screen would be difficult for me to skip.  Archie/Ms. Grundy is a huge mistake.  Having Archie's parents divorced is wrong.  Reggie was so badly miscast I had to wait for the dialogue to know it was him.  The actress playing Betty is certainly spot on.  Jughead's hat is wrong.  Moose being gay makes no sense.  Jughead gay makes a lot of sense (there seems to be a hint of it).  Veronica's parents being divorced is very logical and the comics often seem to hint at this-Mrs. Lodge is very rarely seen.  I don't understand why Cheryl would get invited to Betty's house, it seems stupid. 
   I would still prefer a sitcom (or actually a cartoon).  It would work better PG rated.

You have hit on why this won't work as a live action TV series.  They can only do one season because the next year they would have to move up a grade.  If they did a cartoon it could go on for many years, like the Simpsons. 

  I would suppose at some point, Archie probably did date a girl named "Sheila."  I never understood the song "Waldo P. Emerson Jones"-presumably he would be related to Jughead, and yet this is never explained. 
    There must be stories that claim that Archie and his classmates are juniors (and perhaps a few that give their age as 16).  However, most stories don't claim a grade or age, and the idea of them being seniors works just as well.  There can't be much continuity-the Archie from Archie Comics Number One would be in his 90s now...

I recall in the book Archie: His First 50 Years, author Charles Phillips refers to the Archie characters (Archie and his classmates) as being 17.  Also there was a song on the first Archies LP called "17 Ain't Young."  This led me to believe that Archie is supposed to be a high school senior.

Quote from: steveinthecity on January 16, 2017, 12:35:25 AM

Quote from: Upsiditus on January 15, 2017, 09:45:35 PM

Quote from: 60sBettyandReggie on January 11, 2017, 10:35:30 PM

Quote from: Thestereotypebuster on January 11, 2017, 09:29:26 PM
I mean, we wouldn't want stories about Archie driving a jalopy and the characters making jokes about women drivers now a days, would we?

I would. I like those stories. There's something really endearing about them.
But I get what you're saying. And yet, even if throughout the years Archie has always been trying to be up to date with the modern times, the comics still feel vintage-y and nostalgic. At least that's how I feel about them. I don't know how to explain it exactly. Like for example, me as a kid in the 1980s reading 80s Archie stories, I never felt like they were modern. They always had that old (in a good way) feeling. Same in the 90s, same in the early 2000s. That is what I love about them. The classic, vintage, innocent feeling. That's what this new spin is lacking.

   When fictional stories are set in the present, they are not supposed to be any specific year, from what I understand.

Not trying to be contentious, but wouldn't the "present" be more more or less a specific year?  Give or take.

  Fiction set in the present is supposed to speak to audiences for many years after it is written and thus doesn't want to be tied to one specific year.

  I think the Betty&Veronica reboot comics are not as child friendly as they used to be.  I read #2 recently and was disturbed by this. 

   I think it would have been interesting if the Riverdale producers had hired one actress to play both Betty & Veronica and just had her wear different wigs and change her voice for each character.  It would have been more faithful to the comics. 

Quote from: 60sBettyandReggie on January 11, 2017, 10:35:30 PM

Quote from: Thestereotypebuster on January 11, 2017, 09:29:26 PM
I mean, we wouldn't want stories about Archie driving a jalopy and the characters making jokes about women drivers now a days, would we?

I would. I like those stories. There's something really endearing about them.
But I get what you're saying. And yet, even if throughout the years Archie has always been trying to be up to date with the modern times, the comics still feel vintage-y and nostalgic. At least that's how I feel about them. I don't know how to explain it exactly. Like for example, me as a kid in the 1980s reading 80s Archie stories, I never felt like they were modern. They always had that old (in a good way) feeling. Same in the 90s, same in the early 2000s. That is what I love about them. The classic, vintage, innocent feeling. That's what this new spin is lacking.

   When fictional stories are set in the present, they are not supposed to be any specific year, from what I understand.

The characters had small wardrobes in Archie's Weird Mysteries, but I didn't see any problems with the animation.  The stories often didn't resemble the comic books and I didn't personally care for "the weird" element most of the time.

I don't understand why they drew so few clothes for those cartoons.

   A cartoon Archie Comics series would seem like a slam dunk.  However, cartoons usually have limited budgets, so Betty and Veronica would be wearing the same clothes in every episode, which is rather off-putting.  A live-action sitcom without either a studio audience or a laugh track would could very good, IMO. 

   If Archie Comics wants to start a new comic book series called "Riverdale" and put characters in situations based on the new TV show, that's okay, but to do such things in the pre-existing comics is totally unacceptable. 

Quote from: BettyReggie on May 12, 2016, 10:59:09 PM
I hope it's on Friday night. There's nothing on tv on Friday night.

  I hope so too.  Friday is the Jewish Sabbath and thus I will be unable to watch this atrocity.