Quote from: terrence12 on January 12, 2017, 11:49:52 AM

Quote from: steveinthecity on January 11, 2017, 10:08:09 PM
I always enjoyed the sex/violence/murder centric stories in classic Archie.  That Friday night date and running a lemonade stand stuff is for the birds.

actually during the past there isn't a single sex/violence/murder centric in those classic archie stories just some innuendos though some part about mysteries were included

Quote from: steveinthecity on January 11, 2017, 11:45:46 PMWhile never too extreme, Bob Bolling was the best at pushing the "terror" envelope as it were. Those first thirty something issues of Little Archie show some of that.  LWA volume 1 was obviously on that tip as well.

Maybe i mean he is the one who created little archie heck he even made fantasy adventures based on that character.

Quote from: 60sBettyandReggie on January 12, 2017, 12:27:06 AMAnd how about the "Betty Cooper, Betty Cooper" storyline?

Actually "Betty Cooper, Betty Cooper" is the parody of daytime soaps during that time which is also the parody of the same show that parodies teh soap opera called Mary Hartman, Mary Hartman

While I've just recently come to understand this is the most humorless message board in all the intranets, I would suggest your own humor and sarcasm meter be recalibrated when you have the opportunity.  PM me at your leisure so I might assist.

Quote from: Acejughead on January 11, 2017, 11:57:17 PM

Quote from: steveinthecity on January 11, 2017, 11:33:57 PM

Quote from: Acejughead on January 11, 2017, 10:36:02 PM

Quote from: steveinthecity on January 11, 2017, 10:26:48 PM

Quote from: apple on January 11, 2017, 10:15:44 PM

Quote from: steveinthecity on January 11, 2017, 10:01:04 PM
There's no more reliable critic of a 16 year old than another 16 year old.   

I honest to god have no clue what you meant by the rest of that but are you saying that you'll only accept Jug being asexual if an adult points it out? I cannot think of a context where that wouldn't be either weird, creepy, or both.

Not in the least.  Adults are not the be all end all in opinions imo, just that I'd take a high school kids opinion with a grain or two of salt is all I'm saying.

'

IT'S SAID IN-COMIC AND BY THE AUTHOR I DON'T KNOW WHAT ELSE YOU WANT FROM THEM
You get it said by the people controlling all the characters.
They even write it in and then have the chainracter consistently act in ways that confirm his asexuality.

What are you trying to get me to say? Congratulations for not trusting children??

Umm,  you're right on all counts.


Consistently from creators like Montana, Doyle, Boldman, etc. is out the window? Where did I imply I don't trust children? 


Should I leap for joy over a cartoon characters sexuality?  I barely care about my own.  Maybe there's a name for that, and someone should incorporate that into my custom title.


I should start posting in all caps, maybe. Because.


I forgot the apostrophe in "characters".

Listen, I made a post to say "Hi! I'm joining this forum! I like the comics, and asexual Jughead is something I really like!" I never said any of you had to be excited, but apparently if it matters to one person it needs to matter to everyone (before you quote that line and say that you "never said that" I'm going to point out that you asked me why it matters. That was the first thing you said to me. It doesn't have to matter to you and I never said it did. I was just saying I was happy he was asexual, I wasn't pushing some kind of agenda. It matters to me.)

I never said that other creators said he was ace. I specifically mentioned Ryan North and Chip Zdarsky. When I say "asexual Jughead" I am talking about the "New Riverdale" line of comics, not any previous ones. I made the username "acejughead" because that's what I'm excited about, just like other users have made usernames related to them shipping Betty and Reggie. Because betty/reggie is what they support and they are excited about the pairing.

I typed in caps because I was trying to communicate that I was frustrated. I will avoid doing that from now on, I was just unsure how to get that frustration across in text. Don't be passive aggressive with me, just ask me not to type in all caps.

Since apparently you're going to nitpick, I'm sorry for making a typo or two. Also, I think you were trying to say that I made a typo? In which case you should've written "You forgot the apostrophe in "characters"." I also misspelled characters but you missed that lol
please stop trying to have some kind of debate I wasn't trying to cause an argument by simply bringing up a character's sexuality. Sorry my identity and enjoyment of a comic book is so controversial.

I'm listening.   


I'm not nitpicking or being passive aggressive by any means.  I was genuinely curious about your comment on Jughead's sexuality and why it even matters is all.   My favorite comics character since...forever is Jughead, so I'm always interested in what folks opinions about him are, particularly Archie readers.


My comment on the typo was just calling myself out, maybe self depreciation or something along those lines. 


I'm not trying to debate or argue.  If you're only speaking of behavioral traits in the reboot, that's fine.  Probably nothing to debate anyhow. I often take the body of work as a whole and draw conclusions from that.  In this instance, I shouldn't do that.


Again, welcome to the forum and I'm glad you're here.  If I don't seem to care about yours or others sexual orientation it shouldn't  be implied that I don't care about you (or others) as people, but rather I don't care about who you boink or otherwise covet.


As to the comments above, Jughead most assuredly dated girls throughout the years,  not sure if that means anything or if it should.

Who do I need to pander to in order to be called Cuddle Cakes or Dumpling?

Quote from: 60sBettyandReggie on January 11, 2017, 10:52:32 PM

Quote from: steveinthecity on January 11, 2017, 10:08:09 PM

Quote from: 60sBettyandReggie on December 27, 2016, 12:46:41 PM
Well, let's not forget Archie's Weird Mysteries, was about- like the name says, mysteries. But this new CW thing is gonna be more about sex, violence/murder. That's what I don't like. What is it about people that all they want to watch is those kinds of things? They don't really care about innocent-ish things anymore.

I always enjoyed the sex/violence/murder centric stories in classic Archie.  That Friday night date and running a lemonade stand stuff is for the birds.










*I agree with 60sBettyandReggie.

Oh, you! (In all honesty my favorite classic stories were the really gory ones )

While never too extreme, Bob Bolling was the best at pushing the "terror" envelope as it were. Those first thirty something issues of Little Archie show some of that.  LWA volume 1 was obviously on that tip as well.

Quote from: Acejughead on January 11, 2017, 10:36:02 PM

Quote from: steveinthecity on January 11, 2017, 10:26:48 PM

Quote from: apple on January 11, 2017, 10:15:44 PM

Quote from: steveinthecity on January 11, 2017, 10:01:04 PM
There's no more reliable critic of a 16 year old than another 16 year old.   

I honest to god have no clue what you meant by the rest of that but are you saying that you'll only accept Jug being asexual if an adult points it out? I cannot think of a context where that wouldn't be either weird, creepy, or both.

Not in the least.  Adults are not the be all end all in opinions imo, just that I'd take a high school kids opinion with a grain or two of salt is all I'm saying.

'

IT'S SAID IN-COMIC AND BY THE AUTHOR I DON'T KNOW WHAT ELSE YOU WANT FROM THEM
You get it said by the people controlling all the characters.
They even write it in and then have the chainracter consistently act in ways that confirm his asexuality.

What are you trying to get me to say? Congratulations for not trusting children??

Umm,  you're right on all counts.


Consistently from creators like Montana, Doyle, Boldman, etc. is out the window? Where did I imply I don't trust children? 


Should I leap for joy over a cartoon characters sexuality?  I barely care about my own.  Maybe there's a name for that, and someone should incorporate that into my custom title.


I should start posting in all caps, maybe. Because.


I forgot the apostrophe in "characters". 

Quote from: apple on January 11, 2017, 10:15:44 PM

Quote from: steveinthecity on January 11, 2017, 10:01:04 PM
There's no more reliable critic of a 16 year old than another 16 year old.   

I honest to god have no clue what you meant by the rest of that but are you saying that you'll only accept Jug being asexual if an adult points it out? I cannot think of a context where that wouldn't be either weird, creepy, or both.

Not in the least.  Adults are not the be all end all in opinions imo, just that I'd take a high school kids opinion with a grain or two of salt is all I'm saying.

Quote from: Archiecomicxfan215 on January 11, 2017, 09:50:16 AM
Thank you everyone




--------------------------


Today i am going to my first NHL Hockey game with my dad. It was his christmas present

New York Islanders vs Florida Panthers

Give us a recap when you're able.  Hockey in person is amazing to watch.




Go Islanders!

Quote from: 60sBettyandReggie on December 27, 2016, 12:46:41 PM
Well, let's not forget Archie's Weird Mysteries, was about- like the name says, mysteries. But this new CW thing is gonna be more about sex, violence/murder. That's what I don't like. What is it about people that all they want to watch is those kinds of things? They don't really care about innocent-ish things anymore.

I always enjoyed the sex/violence/murder centric stories in classic Archie.  That Friday night date and running a lemonade stand stuff is for the birds.










*I agree with 60sBettyandReggie.

Quote from: apple on January 11, 2017, 09:12:13 PM

Quote from: DeCarlo Rules on January 11, 2017, 12:07:44 PM
Without that, all we've got for concrete evidence is "Oh, didn't you hear? The new writer of Jughead definitely says he's writing him as asexual", which seems like a pretty wishy-washy commitment to an idea to me.

There's no more reliable critic of a 16 year old than another 16 year old.   


To this day I still carry the burden of Satanism because I dared to wear a Black Sabbath shirt to school years before Ozzy became a darling to millions.


"X's" and "straight edge"?  Now I feel marginalized.  I'll confer with folks on Reddit to see if I should be offended

请恰当地拼写螺纹名字。


请求oldiesmann修理它。 谢谢。

Quote from: Acejughead on January 06, 2017, 09:45:56 PM
I found a link to this forum off Tumblr and I'm super excited to see such an active Archie Fandom!!!
I love the old comics but the new comics are really great! (As you can probably guess from my username I am super psyched that the newer comics confirmed that Jughead is asexual)

I heard there's going to be a Riverdale TV show and I'm really excited! I'm not usually a fan of "gritty" shows but I'm willing to watch anything Archie Comics puts out. Nice to meet y'all!

Why does "asexual" even matter?  He's a 16 year old goofy kid. Draw some "X's" on his hand.  He's probably straight edge, too.

The upcoming show has little to do with traditional Archie, but I'm sure you've figured that out by now.

Welcome to the boards, by the way. Help us make this place more active.

Quote from: Curbie93 on January 02, 2017, 01:12:51 PM
Hi there, i used to read this one betty/reggie fan fiction story here but I can't find it. It was called 'the wolf loves the dove' or something similar. It was about on how reggie get back to betty after college years. Thanks in advance!

Linky.

Quote from: PTF on November 23, 2016, 03:01:26 PM
Okay, finally got to pick both issues up.

What I liked.

1. The art. It's Adam Hughes so you know it's going to have great art. And I actually like the story, the dialogue and the characters. And the jokes are pretty funny.

2. Crazy Betty. The best version of Betty: her being super nice and also being nutso.

3. Ethel. I'm glad he actually drew her not so pretty. Heck, Ethel exists in one of the titles! The best she could do before was being undead in Afterlife.

4. Heel Kevin Keller. Yeah, he hasn't said much, but I already find him way more interesting than the original. Not even close. I'm not joking.

5. Veronica. I can see some going "Too Cheryl" But it is a new universe with it's own continuity and I did find her entertaining. She's so incredibly smug and stacking everything against Betty, it's going to be great to see her lose. Favorite moment had to be the liquor license and her kissing it then winking at Betty.


What I didn't like.

1. Pop Tate. ...Um, ya couldn't draw him fat because when I first looked at him, I didn't recognize him.

2. The Hot Dog stuff. ...Um, why Hot Dog? I mean, if Hot Dog did this for the Jughead book I could understand that. Honestly, even then I'd be willing to throw logic out the window if I knew this book was going to keep on schedule. It's Archie Comics and it's Adam Hughes. Eh-eh. So we're losing page time. Plus...why can Hot Dog talk and Caramel can't? That's not fair.

3. Toni Topaz. She is the most popular unpopular character I've ever seen!!

4. The cussing. It's not so much the words as who is doing it. I just can't see any version of Betty cussing.

5. The carwash scene. Okay, you had a bunch of middle age guys taking pictures of teenage girls washing cars in 57 degree weather. I mean, it's funny, but--yyyeeeessshhh.

So yeah, it's not perfect but it's still very good. But I can see why some people would be turned off. The first issue was about a B and the next a B+.

PTF, as much as I agree on the bullet points you've laid out, I'd have to downgrade much harsher.  I just feel the story is both relying too heavily on the relationship "classic" readers have with the characters while the same time putting forth something entirely new and unrelated to past incarnations, which makes the story just seem like random events. With no real nod to character history, why are they behaving as they are?


I did give extra credit to Hot Dog smoking a cigar btw.

Quote from: DeCarlo Rules on November 23, 2016, 06:21:34 AM

Quote from: steveinthecity on November 22, 2016, 11:37:59 PM
To previously echo previous thoughts, I don't believe ACP ever really archived stories based on title or subject until more recent years when editors where being called upon to provide such material.

In the past, they did maintain a library of bound volumes of the printed comics, at least up to the early 1990s, that went back to the very beginning of their publishing history. I couldn't say whether or not anyone had ever bothered to index those stories by keywords or themes or story elements or characters in any way. That would probably have been a labor-intensive project in itself. But the library was there for editors to use in looking for stories to reprint.

Did I imply ACP didn't maintain any archive?      Not my intent if my post came across that way.


The quick sources for my comment originated from old posts from Suzanimated (former Digest Editor) and forsythe.  Susanna had described there wasn't much done in the way of organization by theme and such for several decades.  Forsythe as we know has a much larger archive of Archie related material than ACP itself, and provides scans, photos, etc. to books being produced because the ACP archive is full of "holes" (Not meant as slight towards them) and similarly echoed Suzanimated's comments.

I don't know that I ever suggested there was no library for editors to use as reference material.

Quote from: Ottawagrant on November 22, 2016, 08:08:45 PM
Digests are a good value for money. As I've mentioned before where I shop I can get 3 digest for $10. Canadian. That is cheaper than subscribing. That's why I personally don't mind when content gets reprinted in digest form. Not just classic Archie, but the 75th Anniversary content. A puzzle to myself is why they don't reprint entire issues in digest form. If a digest came on the market & the cover said 'Pep Comics #100 to 110' (for example), you could mark it as 'sold'. I think reprinting entire issues of classic Sabrina would be a good seller.

At 3/$10 one would wonder what their net profit margin is, or the incentive as the digests apparently make little (if any) revenue from outside advertising.  To previously echo previous thoughts, I don't believe ACP ever really archived stories based on title or subject until more recent years when editors where being called upon to provide such material.


I'll also harken back to a previous comment that offering stories perceived to be "old" would probably generate less interest at the checkout stand. Ignorance is bliss.