It's a cool image, but Veronica's tattoo seems like it's stretching things quite a bit for her character... I can't imagine her actually having something like that.

Recycling Cliff Chiang (Not bad. It looks like Chiang is taking his cue from Jaime Hernandez in a 1980s issue of LOVE & ROCKETS.) --

And in a related observation.... It's dead, Jim. Why waste money on new cover art?

And why IS it, exactly, that nearly EVERY floppy comic ACP publishes (and DC's, too) gets at LEAST one variant cover (unless, y'know, they decide it's a new #1 issue of a major ACP character that needs... oh, at least 25 variants)?  Seriously though. Take a look at those solicitations. All the floppy format comics have 2 variants (in addition to the regular cover "A") except RIVERDALE (which only has one variant). ONLY B&V FRIENDS FOREVER #1 has... ZERO variant covers.

... But a new BETTY AND VERONICA comic by Dan Parent?? It don't need no stinking variants!!  Either that's a HUGE vote of overconfidence, OR... they just consider it flushable.

AND now REGGIE can honestly boast that he got more variant covers on his first issue than Betty and Veronica did on their #1 issue.
WHERE'S THE G-D RESPECT,  that's what I wanna know.

Quote from: DeCarlo Rules on February 22, 2018, 12:27:26 AM
Even if the new ARCHIE title's run were to match Sabrina the Manga's previous record of 43 issues, I suspect we'd never see an issue #44. What would seem more likely is that the following issue would be numbered #700 (adding the previous 666 issues of the original ARCHIE's run to the new numbering), so that they could ballyhoo that, and benefit from a temporary sales bump (because that's just the way floppy comics marketing tends to work). And indeed, that's exactly what happened when the final issue of BETTY AND VERONICA was published.

Hey, my math cells must have been pretty bad when I wrote that, and nobody called me on it. So I'm calling myself on it. #700 would actually be new ARCHIE #34, not 44. So check back here in another three months and let the ballyhoo begin!

Have they already announced that Audrey Mok is only continuing up to a certain issue, or is BettyReggie just speculating about a "next artist"?

I think I would have liked VIXENS more if Audrey Mok had gotten that assignment.

The longest-running ACP title of the 2000s is actually SABRINA, with 104 issues -- but despite the continued numbering, it's really four different series. SABRINA The Animated Series ran for 37 issues from 2000 to 2002, followed by SABRINA The Teenage Witch (by Holly G) for 20 issues from 2003 to 2004, followed by SABRINA The Magic Within (the manga by Tania Del Rio) for 43 issues from 2004-2009, followed by a 4-issue miniseries for YOUNG SALEM in 2009, wrapping up the 104 consecutively-numbered issues. The 43 issues of Sabrina the manga still holds the record for longest-running ACP series of the 2000s so far, unless the new ARCHIE can beat that record. (If we were to go back as far as 1995, the winner would be CHERYL BLOSSOM, adding up all of the issues of her various miniseries to her ongoing series of 37 issues, for a total of 50 Cheryl Blossom comic books.)

Even if the new ARCHIE title's run were to match Sabrina the Manga's previous record of 43 issues, I suspect we'd never see an issue #44. What would seem more likely is that the following issue would be numbered #700 (adding the previous 666 issues of the original ARCHIE's run to the new numbering), so that they could ballyhoo that, and benefit from a temporary sales bump (because that's just the way floppy comics marketing tends to work). And indeed, that's exactly what happened when the final issue of BETTY AND VERONICA was published.

In comic book shops, for January 2018, ARCHIE #27 sold 8,288 copies (making it the 208th best-selling title out of the 500 titles whose sales were listed), narrowly beaten out as the top-selling ACP title that month by JUGHEAD THE HUNGER #3 at 8,337 copies. For comparison's sake, in that same month, VIXENS #3 sold 5,435 copies, THE ARCHIES #4 sold 4,648 copies, RIVERDALE #10 sold 4,466, COSMO #1 sold 3,626, and MIGHTY CRUSADERS #2 sold a measly 2,226 copies*. Of course, we need to remember that that's ONLY the sales figures for comic shops (which is still a reliable majority of a floppy comic's sales numbers), and that the numbers represent the amounts of those titles ordered and paid for by RETAILERS, not the number of copies that were sold to CONSUMERS by those same retailers (although, that said, the lower the number of copies cited, the more likely it closely represents the actual number sold to consumers). We already know the fate of THE ARCHIES, COSMO, and MIGHTY CRUSADERS, so judge accordingly. THE ARCHIES might have been affected by factors having to do with securing the rights to the various bands appearing therein, which is why RIVERDALE, a slightly lower-selling title, could still continue where THE ARCHIES won't. At the moment, ARCHIE seems to be holding fairly steady at 8k+ copies per issue, which is sustainable at that level. Next year at this time, who knows. If ARCHIE sales were to dip to the 4k level, it would become an endangered title, but for now, it's good. VIXENS is closer to the borderline (if COSMO can be taken as an indicator), but they may be banking on the trade collections as the better-selling revenue stream, so it seems like (barring a sudden drop in those numbers) we'll get at least 10 issues to make up two TP volumes. Floppy comic sales generally trend downward over time as a rule, and a lot can happen within the space of 4 or 5 issues. RIVERDALE, of course, may continue simply because of the TV series, and to not publish a comic book tie-in would seem to make the company lose face, unless it really begins to bleed.

In trade paperback sales, ACP's best-seller for January was CHILLING ADVENTURES IN SORCERY, a collection of black-&-white reprints of ACP's 1970s horror comics, at 1,071 copies. Which doesn't sound too impressive until you stop to think about the cover price of $20, and realize that it ranked No. 68 out of 509 trade collections listed, putting it ahead of even a lot of Marvel and DC's trade collections in sales, so it seems likely that we'll see another such black-&-white collection of 1970s ACP horror comics -- and remember, without the additional cost of color printing, that makes each copy more profitable for ACP than a comparably-priced TP that sold about the same. The next best-selling ACP trade was JOSIE Vol. 2 at 578 copies (ranked No. 165 out of 509). An additional 253 copies of ARCHIE Vol. 1 TP (ranking No. 397 of 509) were ordered by retailers that month, which is something to factor into consideration of the continued publication of the ARCHIE floppy comic, as there would be a likely trickle-down readership for succeeding volumes.

At a guesstimate, considering both print and digital formats, I'd say that means the audience for the new ARCHIE has been something shy of 20,000 readers in total, with only about 8,000 being the hardcore "brand loyal" followers (who are going to follow whatever core Archie title ACP puts out) that have purchased and read every single issue in some form, and the remainder having sampled a portion of the run beyond #1 (heavily weighted towards those early Fiona Staples issues) at some point in whatever format. That's eliminating whatever duplicate copies of the print issues may have been sold to single collectors who own more than one copy, either for speculation purposes, or for variant cover artwork.

*MIGHTY CRUSADERS stands as a particularly egregious example of the inverse relationship that exists between floppy comic books that I like and floppy comic books that sell in today's comic shop market, so if I happen to mention in a post that I really liked a comic book, you should probably take that with a heavy sense of "DANGER!! DANGER, Will Robinson!!".

[All sales figures sourced from comichron.com]

Hmm. Apparently I was wrong about VIXENS. It just skipped one month's solicitations between story arcs and #6 begins a new story... so I guess it's probably going to go until at least issue #10.

I'll be surprised if ARCHIE makes it as far as #50, but somewhere around #40 I can see it running out of steam. Which is still actually pretty good for ACP, for just about anything in the last couple of decades.

Cool retro variant cover on COSMO #5!

Web-bots AGAIN? 

02-21-18:
THE FURTHER ADVENTURES OF NICK WILSON #2 (of 5)
TWISTED ROMANCE #2 & 3 (of 4)
HELLBOY & THE B.P.R.D. 1955 #20
EMPOWERED & SISTAH SPOOKY'S HIGH SCHOOL HELL #3 (of 6)
HIT-GIRL IN COLUMBIA #1 (of 4)
ICE CREAM MAN #2
MOONSHINE #7
KONG ON THE PLANET OF APES #4 (of 6)
INFINITY COUNTDOWN: PRIME #1
PUNISHER: THE PLATOON #6 (of 6)
BATMAN: SINS OF THE FATHER #1 (of ?)
BATMAN/TEENAGE MUTANT NINJA TURTLES II #4 (of 6)
CAVE CARSON/SWAMP THING SPECIAL #1 ("MILK WARS" Part 4)
FUTURE QUEST PRESENTS: BIRDMAN #7
COMPULSIVE COMICS bY Eric Haven TP
DEVILMAN GRIMOIRE VOL 02

Quote from: Tuxedo Mark on February 20, 2018, 11:33:59 PM

Quote from: DeCarlo Rules on February 20, 2018, 05:50:55 PM

Quote from: Tuxedo Mark on February 20, 2018, 04:02:51 PM
Even with Supergirl, I like to think I know a fair bit about her history, and I can safely say the current TV series is the best adaptation of her, followed by the "Smallville" incarnation. They're not perfect, but they're good.

Even saying you know about Supergirl's history is sort of an ambiguous statement, because there have been about 5 or 6 different versions of "Supergirl" (some of which weren't even Kal-El's cousin Kara Zor-El), each of which changed basic details of her origin story, making them mutually inconsistent. Even the Kara Zor-El versions of the character are all predicated on the prior existence of Superman in her universe, so it seems a little weird to have a Supergirl television series where there had been no Superman television series beforehand to spin off of. I don't know whether Superman is actually a character in the show, or if there's just some assumption of his offscreen presence. It seems a little like making a Nightwing television series and not having any reference to Batman.

Oh, he's there; he's just used very sparingly. They recently hinted at a sort of Smallville-esque history for him in the "Supergirl" universe (he has a hacker friend named Chloe with a Wall of Weird).

That's a little weird too, given that in the SMALLVILLE series there wasn't any Superboy (and the series went on far past the time when he should have become Superman). Apparently in the comic book series adapted from SMALLVILLE which spun off after the series ended, he finally DID get a Superman costume (but since I didn't actually read it, that's about all I know about it, from having seen the covers).

But yeah, SMALLVILLE kind of broke the mold as the first "NOT an adaptation, but a freeform variation" which was "based on", but not really "adapted from", the comic books. With no apologies, they just played "what if" with that show, and went off on whatever tangents they wanted, not beholden to anything established before in the Superboy/man comic books. Shows like GOTHAM and RIVERDALE are the direct descendants of that "not really trying to adapt anything here, folks" type of thinking.

Personally, I think the Japanese do a much better job of live-action superheroes on television that capture the look and "feel" of comic books. That's because rather than adapt an existing manga to television, they usually just hire a manga creator to create the original-for-TV characters, background world, and premise for a TV series, and then the manga artist goes off and does his own manga version which runs concurrent with the show (and which frequently deviates from the TV series storyline at some point). The absolute best superhero movies and TV shows I've seen are all Japanese.

I guess I just don't feel much of a sense of urgency or priority about most of the comic book shows and movies. Like I can see it now, next year when it comes on DVD, or five years from now when I see it in a Walmart $5 bin. With the TV shows it's more a question of how much time do I care to invest in something, because it's not like you really get complete stories from a single episode... it's a 20+hour telenovel each season. Probably not that much, because I'd rather spend the time reading. If I felt that committed, I'd probably just wait for a DVD box set and watch it that way.

Quote from: Tuxedo Mark on February 20, 2018, 04:02:51 PM
Even with Supergirl, I like to think I know a fair bit about her history, and I can safely say the current TV series is the best adaptation of her, followed by the "Smallville" incarnation. They're not perfect, but they're good.

Even saying you know about Supergirl's history is sort of an ambiguous statement, because there have been about 5 or 6 different versions of "Supergirl" (some of which weren't even Kal-El's cousin Kara Zor-El), each of which changed basic details of her origin story, making them mutually inconsistent. Even the Kara Zor-El versions of the character are all predicated on the prior existence of Superman in her universe, so it seems a little weird to have a Supergirl television series where there had been no Superman television series beforehand to spin off of. I don't know whether Superman is actually a character in the show, or if there's just some assumption of his offscreen presence. It seems a little like making a Nightwing television series and not having any reference to Batman.

Quote from: SAGG on February 20, 2018, 09:48:57 AMI think you'd like Black Panther, DR. It's VERY good. I saw it Monday...

I've seen next-to-nothing in terms of information about the film, except for a few ad banners here and there (not even the trailer), but I'll check into it some more. The comics have been doing some revamping of the Black Panther's mythos that I haven't closely followed in recent years, and I'm not sure how much those recent comics figure into the film interpretation. The first thing that strikes me as different is the costume, which is more of a techno-suit armor than just some ceremonial garb. I guess it fits with the fact that T'Challa is supposed to be a high-tech wiz, but then again, he's not just an African Iron Man.

Quote from: irishmoxie on February 20, 2018, 11:07:26 AM

Quote from: gillibean on February 19, 2018, 09:47:44 PM
Sometimes its really funny how they try to force the most random things from the comics into the script. For example "Jingle Jangle" (The song by the Archies) is now the term for a pixie-stick type drug. Pretty hilarious how they forced that one in.

I don't watch every week and I tend to marathon the episodes. My favorite part of the show probably is the Easter Eggs and there's plenty of them. They usually elicit a chuckle from me.

That's pretty much what I'm talking about. The novelty factor is in looking for the characters and other bits referencing the comics, and seeing when they'll appear and how they'll be remixed and reinterpreted into the Riverdale storyline. That would be the hook for some viewers, at least the ones that have more than the most basic knowledge about the comics -- and even for the rest, the vast majority whose knowledge of Archie is very basic, it's in how they change up the standard tropes of Archie, B&V, Jughead, and Reggie.

Quote from: gillibean on February 19, 2018, 09:47:44 PMI can feel that it was not made for an Archie comics fan. I'm not saying it has to be perfect for the fans, but I wish it could be like marvel, where ANYONE can enjoy the movies/shows they put out.

You might think so, about the Marvel movies and TV shows. But I've read thousands of Marvel comics, and for me, in general, most of those movies and shows just hold "no interest".  I've liked certain aspects of some. Overall the X-Men movies seem the best, along with Deadpool. I have to assume it's because I've never followed the X-Men comic book franchise with as much passion as I have for some of the others, like Captain America or the Avengers (but then by the time they got around to making those movies, I didn't care much for the current comic books either). When they throw the X-Men into a movie and make changes, I can see what they changed, but it's not that big of a deal to me, because it's been a long while since I felt a lot of reverence for the X-Men comic books. I tend to like the oddball choices for movie adaptations, like Kick-Ass (which I actually thought was better than the comic book it was based on). But there's usually a general rule in effect there that dictates an inverse relationship between how much I like the character or series as a comic book, and how much I like it as a movie or TV show. Having figured that out, I now can just watch the preview trailer for a comic book movie, and usually tell immediately whether it looks interesting or not (mostly not).

It seems to me that if you REALLY really like a specific comic book series or characters, it makes you pretty fussy about certain details, very specific things that you enjoy from the comic book version. When you don't see those things included in the movie or show based on comics, or they are distorted or twisted in the process of transferring them to another media, then instead of getting some kind of hoped-for satisfaction along the lines of "it's like the comic book come to life", you get exactly the opposite, a huge letdown -- just a big list of disappointments of all the ways in which the movie or show didn't get it right. I used to wonder why, as comic books gained more credibility and respect from the mainstream, that the movies and TV shows adapted from them didn't become more "faithful to the source material" -- but in actual fact, it seems like the adaptations have gone in the opposite direction. So while the average person watching can just go along with whatever they throw on the screen without any problems, the less-than one-percenters who are hardcore fans of the comic book version of the characters might feel otherwise, because they've already spent far too much time thinking about those characters, and while watching the movie or television version, they tend to sit there and analyze every detail, comparing it with the comic book version, and find that the movie or show is missing or changed important elements that are essential to them. That goes for the various modern DC movies and TV shows as well. Strangely enough, in the 90s, the animated DC shows like Batman, Superman, and Justice League were often better than the comic books they were publishing (their main universe, not the comics adapted from the animation).

Where RIVERDALE differs from the various Marvel and DC film and television adaptations, I think, is that its main selling point of interest is not as an adaptation of the classic Archie characters (or even the New Riverdale ARCHIE) -- it's the radical re-interpretation of the classic Archie characters that is its cachet. The awareness of that among the viewers, that this will not be a straight adaptation, but a Twilight Zone-ish parallel universe remix of the characters, is what draws its audience and holds it. That was also the case for AFTERLIFE WITH ARCHIE, which is a better analog (minus the horror elements) for the television series than regular Archie comics. Not surprisingly, since Roberto Aguirre-Sacasa was the mastermind behind both of them. Clearly this won't be a faithful adaptation, but how exactly will they re-interpret those characters? That's the main drawing point to pique the curiosity of viewers, it seems to me.