* Random Image

Posted by: SAGG
Posted in album: SAGG

* Search

* Recent Topics

Days we look foward to as Archie Fans. by BettyReggie
[Today at 08:57:48 AM]

Riverdale Reviewed by Tuxedo Mark
[September 23, 2017, 10:20:45 PM]

What are you currently watching? by irishmoxie
[September 23, 2017, 08:01:20 PM]

What comics have you been reading? by SAGG
[September 22, 2017, 07:22:18 PM]

hOW i WISH-- by DeCarlo Rules
[September 22, 2017, 11:38:44 AM]

Archie Barber Shop by DeCarlo Rules
[September 22, 2017, 05:51:52 AM]

What have you done today? by Archiecomicxfan215
[September 21, 2017, 09:49:39 AM]

Library Books That You All Read by BettyReggie
[September 20, 2017, 04:46:50 PM]

Whew! by SAGG
[September 20, 2017, 02:20:10 PM]

Rick and Morty by SAGG
[September 16, 2017, 09:05:26 PM]

* Shoutbox

Refresh History
  • Vegan Jughead: Wow, Mark, that was detailed!  Ha ha
    Today at 06:32:42 AM
  • Tuxedo Mark: Here's my review of episode 2 of "Riverdale": [link]
    September 23, 2017, 10:21:29 PM
  • Brandytasir: Hello all....
    September 23, 2017, 07:35:23 PM
  • DeCarlo Rules: 25 years...
    September 23, 2017, 02:57:35 PM
  • DeCarlo Rules: Oh, the irony~! The proposed superhero revival that was too dark and edgy for ACP in 1989 (Spectrum Comics) had to wait 25 to get published (as Dark Circle)... and by then it was "Been there, done that. Nobody cares." I only hope their take-away from lack of response to all the dark superheroes is to make the new Mighty Crusaders title into a fun action-adventure comic book.
    September 23, 2017, 02:56:55 PM
  • steveinthecity: * Article from July 1989.
    September 23, 2017, 12:27:26 PM
  • steveinthecity: An interesting Washington Post article about Archie & staying true to the CCA in what ACP publishes.[link]
    September 23, 2017, 12:26:28 PM
  • Vegan Jughead: Yes Mark.  192 pages.  Jumbos are 256, which was reduced from 288, which was reduced from 320.  The price continues to rise of course.  If you subscribe all issues are the same price.  I know you've had issues with subscriptions, though.
    September 22, 2017, 08:03:39 PM
  • Tuxedo Mark: Are Annuals bigger than regular digests?
    September 22, 2017, 06:50:16 PM
  • DeCarlo Rules: On the plus side, of those 5 issues of B&V Friends in 2017, 2 of them are Jumbo issues and the other three are Annuals.
    September 22, 2017, 05:46:48 AM
  • DeCarlo Rules: Definitely. I was a little worried when there was no B&V Friends solicitation for November... that means only 5 issues came out this year, instead of 6 -- but since you got a renewal notice, and there's an issue solicited for December, it looks like it will continue!  :)
    September 22, 2017, 05:44:32 AM
  • Ronny G: I just got another email from wanting me to renew my B&V Friends subscription, so maybe that's a good sign?
    September 22, 2017, 04:43:39 AM
  • DeCarlo Rules: Sorry about the typo in that link!  :-[
    September 22, 2017, 02:03:03 AM
  • DeCarlo Rules: There's at least one more issue of B&V FRIENDS (#257) solicited for December this year. If it's not the last issue, then apparently it will continue. Here are the December 2017 Archie Comics solicits: [link]
    September 22, 2017, 02:02:34 AM
  • DeCarlo Rules: There's at least one more issue of B&V FRIENDS (#257) solicited for December this year. If it's not the last issue, then apparently it will continue. Here are the December 2017 Archie Comics solicits: [url][/utl]
    September 22, 2017, 02:02:10 AM
  • DeCarlo Rules: There's at least one more issue of B&V FRIENDS (#257) solicited for December this year. If it's not the last issue, then apparently it will continue. Here are the December 2017 Archie Comics solicits: [url][/utl]
    September 22, 2017, 01:59:53 AM
  • DeCarlo Rules: I just got email confirmation from the ACP subscription department... not only is JUGHEAD AND ARCHIE digest ending, but ARCHIE'S FUNHOUSE digest is ending as well. Both subscriptions are automatically switched to the new ARCHIE AND ME digest, unless a subscriber requests a different digest title. No word on B&V FRIENDS digest so far; here's hoping "no news is good news" in this case.
    September 21, 2017, 11:54:07 PM
  • Tuxedo Mark: KJ Apa was in a car accident. He's okay. But he fell asleep at the wheel after working a 16-hour day! Cole Sprouse hitched a ride in a production van or something. They should really pay for transportation for the actors after working long hours. [link]
    September 21, 2017, 04:20:59 PM
  • Archiecomicxfan215: My boyfriend is i can probably get some photos from him to post here
    September 21, 2017, 09:48:15 AM
  • BettyReggie: Anybody going to NYCC?
    September 21, 2017, 07:51:27 AM

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - SAGG

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 5
General Discussion / Re: What comics have you been reading?
« on: September 21, 2017, 01:49:23 AM »
KAIJUMAX: SEASON 3 #3 (of 6)

All About Archie / Re: Betty & Veronica - Lucey vs. DeCarlo
« on: September 10, 2017, 12:46:40 AM »
I have that book and i love that book, but even I, as a HUGE Lucey fan, was a bit taken back at his use of "by far".  I think he was just trying to be edgy since Dan DeCarlo is assumed by most casual observers to be THE Archie artist. 

For B&V, in that era I'll take DeCarlo.  If I can go across all eras, I'll take Dan Parent or Bob Montana, although I love Jeff Shultz's DeCarlo tribute style as well.   

I like Dan Parent's B&V, but Montana and DeCarlo drew during what in my opinion was a high point for women's fashion, so I guess I like Parent's Betty and Veronica heads and Montana and DeCarlo from the neck down.  Ha ha.

For the late '40s and early '50s, it's Bob Montana setting the pace and leading the way (on the newspaper strip and some covers), but as we get to the mid-'50s in the comic books, Harry Lucey began to emerge as the dominant artist, and it was he who largely defined the characters for the next decade's comic books. Overlapping in the early '60s, Dan DeCarlo's version begins to overtake Lucey's as the preeminent B&V depiction, which is pretty well solidified by the later '60s when DeCarlo becomes the main cover artist for all the comics. Lucey's artistic powers began fading in the 1970s comics due to his deteriorating health, and he retired completely in 1976. DeCarlo's dominance just continued to build in the 1970s, adding the newspaper strip to his duties when Bob Montana died in 1975. Becoming the main cover artist, and then the newspaper strip artist, is about all the validation needed to confirm that by the later 1970s, "the traditional Archie Comics style" had become Dan DeCarlo's style.

When discussing the Silver Age artists, one that never seems to get mentioned, or enough credit, is Bob White. He was brought into ACP's production department in the late '50s by Bob Bolling, and when he got to work on the main characters in the '60s, being new to the genre, he seemed to have a strong desire to prove his worth to the company by remaining faithful to the house style of the period, taking most of his artistic cues from DeCarlo's and Lucey's work (and maybe a little bit of Bob Montana). His work can be found in and on the covers of early-1960s issues of Archie and Archie's Girls Betty and Veronica, and he was also a regular contributor to Archie's Madhouse. But he seems to be primarily remembered as the artist on those 1965-1967 issues of Life With Archie that featured Pureheart the Powerful, The Man From R.I.V.E.R.D.A.L.E., and the prototype 3-man version of The Archies. His most distinctive contribution to the company remains the delightfully wonky Cosmo the Merry Martian, which he created, wrote and drew.

A couple of examples of Bob White's covers for Archie's Girls Betty and Veronica.

In the later 1990s, when Dan Parent began to emerge from DeCarlo's mentoring into his own, it seems like he and Jeff Schulz are pretty much neck-and-neck as B&V artists, but Dan Parent was becoming more the signature artist for Veronica. He also helped to launch Cheryl and Sabrina in their own late-1990s comics, eventually turning Cheryl over to Holly G. (who afterwards moved on to Josie and the Pussycats, and then Sabrina). Holly's slightly manga-influenced take on all those characters gave them a fresh look. She also broke away from the traditional method of drawing the girls' eyes as simple black dots with a single ink line representing the eyelash in medium and close-up panels, giving them delicate eyelashes and colored irises, which made them seem more expressive. Holly didn't do many B&V stories, but the one where Betty gets a Goth makeover is memorable.

Then in the 2000s, Dan is allowed to express his own individual style a lot more, and definitely becomes the iconic cover artist for both B&V. Breaking away from the DeCarlo influence a little, he develops a lot of his own signature facial expressions for the girls. Dan's abilities as a graphic designer really begin to impress me at about the time Betty & Veronica Spectacular gets a makeover as a fashion magazine-styled comic (#69-90), and that's about the time that I'd say he "owned" those characters, despite some nice work from Jeff continuing on interior B&V stories. Dan gets to do some fun stuff, like the storybook tales (Wonderland and Oz) and Agents B&V in the digests around the same time. And yes, Dan Parent definitely picked up on the fashion-conscious vibe that DeCarlo had paid real attention to, adding to that contemporary sensibility. I notice in a few of their most recent stories that the brothers Kennedy are really starting to pay attention to B&V's fashions, too.

General Discussion / Re: What comics have you been reading?
« on: September 04, 2017, 06:13:47 AM »
What I can't understand is why Marvel can't get Fantastic Four going movie-wise, the same for Silver Surfer. They seem to get the other Marvel characters well...  ???

Why? Because they don't have the movie rights. And by "they" I mean the Walt Disney Corporation, Marvel Comics' parent company. Those rights were licensed to Fox Studios (which made a couple or three FF films in the last couple of decades) prior to Disney having purchased Marvel Comics. And believe me, they would LOVE to have those rights back NOW that Disney's Marvel Studios movie franchises of the Avengers, Iron Man, Thor, Ant-Man, Guardians of the Galaxy etc. are raking in megabucks for the Walt Disney Corporation. They're more than a little irked by the fact that they don't have those film rights. So much so, that there was a corporate directive issued "from upstairs" that directed Marvel Comics' editors to stop publishing any Fantastic Four comic books (except reprint collections), and to keep all the associated FF characters in low-profile storylines, because the parent corporation viewed that as a form of advertising a rival movie studio's product.  And that's the naked truth.

You know that Spider-Man movie that just came out a month or so back subtitled "Homecoming"? Do you know WHY it was called "Homecoming"?? Because the Walt Disney Company's Marvel Studios division just got those film rights back from the previous licensee, the Sony Corporation, which had produced all the previous Spider-Man movies. Spider-Man came "home" to Marvel's parent company, the Walt Disney Corporation, after those film rights had been locked up for years by the Sony Corporation. And that's why it's the first Spider-Man movie that characters from The Avengers can appear in.

But it makes the situation of the FF film rights even more irksome to the Walt Disney Corporation, because it's not just Mr. Fantastic, the Invisible Woman, the Human Torch, and the Thing that they're missing out on profits from, and their main associated villains like Doctor Doom. It's all of the FF's "associated characters" as stipulated in a list specified by that film rights contract -- the Silver Surfer, Galactus, and probably dozens more. When Marvel was divvying up its universe of characters for film franchise rights, they parceled them out by lists of what "family" they thought this or that character belonged to -- usually whatever comic book in which that character had made his or her first appearance, or the comic book in which the character most frequently appeared. With the Fantastic Four comic book, the first 50 or so issues were co-created by Jack Kirby, and Kirby just couldn't help creating new characters and concepts every couple of issues... so the "associated character" list of the FF family franchise is probably a lot more extensive than that of Spider-Man, at least in terms of valuable concepts that might conceivably be spun off into their own films or TV shows, or who might show up as supporting characters or villains in one of Marvel Studios' other franchise films.

And what ABOUT Fox Studios, anyway? Why can't THEY make a good Fantastic Four movie? Funny you should ask. I recently talked to Neal Adams at a comic book convention, and the topic of Fox's FF movies somehow (I can't recall how now) came up. Adams said that after Fox had made the first FF film and it flopped, someone at the studios had called him for a meeting. They wanted to solicit his opinion on what kind of story would make a good FF movie, and he told them. "There's really only ONE Fantastic Four story that anyone's going to be excited about or care about -- GALACTUS. Galactus, and the Silver Surfer. That's the only story you should be thinking about making." So they did think about it, and what resulted was the second FF movie, where Galactus is something like a giant space cloud. Adams said when he saw that, he was convinced that Fox will never make a good FF movie, because even with the comic books in their hands, no one at that studio has got a clue about what made the Fantastic Four a great comic.

Now that I think about it, the whole Adam Hughes' B&V thing has been pretty disastrous for the company. ... what B&V contributed to the company was 3 issues that took an entire year to come out. That is bad. ... Get a stable creative team that will commit to the title for at least 12 issues, and can deliver pages on time every 6 weeks, or less.

This has me wondering why writers and/or artists can get away with slow work in the first place. Shouldn't it be built into their contracts: "You will provide the script and/or artwork on this schedule, or the contract is terminated"?

Depends on who you think was in the power position in that particular instance. Adam Hughes does not NEED a paycheck from Archie Comics. Someone at ACP decided THEY needed Adam Hughes. The problem was they felt they needed him too badly, and were willing to wait for his work as long as it took. They set themselves up for disaster... after advertising an Adam Hughes story, what are they going to do when issue #2 isn't done by the contractual deadline? "Cancel the contract"?? Oh yeah, and then just get someone else to write & draw issue #2. That's going to make them look like total idiots, advertising Adam Hughes and then pulling the old "bait & switch"... upon which, sales immediately plummet like a stone. So it was no-win for them once they committed to riding the AH!-train. You know what a company like DC Comics would have done? They would have paid Adam Hughes his money IF they were committed to needing him for whatever project. And they would have waited. Waited until he delivered all his work, or was close enough to completing the final issue, before scheduling and soliciting the first issue. And if you're DC Comics, you can do that because you have the money to pay Adam Hughes for 3 issues of a comic book upfront. If you're Archie Comic Publications, you're living from one printer's bill to the next, and one check from Diamond Comic Distributors to the next. You can't pay this guy what you owe him until you get that money you were expecting from that last comic you published.

Just like someone at ACP decided that Mr. Big-Shot TV Writer Roberto Aguirre-Sacasa needed to be courted and wooed ("Ooooo! We'll make you Chief Creative Officer!"), and you do NOT dictate terms to the guy you're begging to get your intellectual properties on TV.

If you're someone like Ian Flynn (who is a fine writer, and I mean him no disrespect for using him as an example), you probably can't afford to be a temperamental artiste who can only write when his creative muse inspires him, because you know they can hire someone else to do the job for the same money.

Now that I think about it, the whole Adam Hughes' B&V thing has been pretty disastrous for the company. What were they thinking, trying to publish Reggie and Josie titles before they could even get an ongoing (as in published at least bi-monthly) Betty and Veronica title established as a stable title?

Instead, what B&V contributed to the company was 3 issues that took an entire year to come out. That is bad. It's worse for a company that already publishes two other "ongoing" titles that only manage to come out once a year: Afterlife With Archie and Chilling Adventures of Sabrina. It sends THIS message to the consumers: "Don't get involved. It will only lead to frustration. They love to promise more than they can actually deliver. It's not worth the grief."

If they'd been thinking, they would have made a B&V title the very next priority after the rebooted Archie. Get a stable creative team that will commit to the title for at least 12 issues, and can deliver pages on time every 6 weeks, or less. Jughead should have been title #3, and once that was up and running, THEN, and only then, with both Archie and B&V coming out on a regular basis, something like Josie, or Reggie, or Veronica, or Betty, or Sabrina. Not too quickly... they should have let B&V build for a year before the next big title, Jughead. Then another 6-8 months before the next title, but only once they'd established some stability.

Between AWA, ChAoS, B&V, and all the various solicit-then-cancel products, they torpedoed any credibility they might have had as a publisher.

General Discussion / Re: What comics have you been reading?
« on: July 29, 2017, 09:51:10 AM »

Moving on to the rest of the DC titles and then I'll be almost up to date.  Just the Free Comic Book Day titles and what has accumulated in the last couple of weeks will be left.

Astro City
Red Thorn
Future Quest
Scooby Doo (several titles)
Batman '66 Meets Wonder Woman '77

General Discussion / Re: Super 'Suckers / Sitcomics update
« on: July 10, 2017, 06:17:56 AM »
YES!! *<-- (If there were a smiley for 'tears of joy' it would go right here.)

I was beginning to despair that Sitcomics had given up. I know there are a lot more profitable avenues of endeavor that you could be spending your time and effort on, so it has to be a true labor of love, and for that I thank you, sir.

September can't come fast enough! I am so looking forward to reading the next Super Suckers binge book!

But still, What do you think if Archie Comics is being sold by IDW in case the former was about to go bankrupt due to low sales and low ratings on the TV show ,Think about it  IDW will make a new comedy period piece on Archie where it will take place in the 40's and 50's since those eras were considered Archie's popular period.

IDW is one of the existing companies that would be the best custodians of the Archie Comics legacy (the other candidates would be Dark Horse or Fantagraphics). Aside from appealing to collectors and those who are appreciative of comic books of the past, I can't see any sort of new floppy comic format series set in the 1940s or 1950s working, though. Its appeal is far too limited. Anything set in the past is a very tough sell in the current comic marketplace. A modified version of that approach, something like what was done with Batman the Animated Series, which is to create a sort of 'timeless' world where artifacts and fashions of the past coexist, blended with some more modern things (like computers and phones), might be more acceptable to the current comics market.

Still, the recent discontinuation of IDW's floppy comic versions of Donald Duck, Mickey Mouse, and Walt Disney's Comics & Stories might be an omen -- IDW is replacing those floppy comic titles with more modern, less traditional, spins on the classic Disney characters, and converting WDC&S to a $7.95 prestige/bookshelf-format (squarebound, 68 page, slick cardstock-covered) comic, and combining Mickey & Donald into one comic in the same format, re-testing their acceptance in the marketplace on a quarterly schedule. There are definitely some parallels to be drawn between the classic Disney comics and classic Archie comics.

If anything though, I'm more and more convinced that what works for the comic shop/comic book collector audience does not work for the expansion of comics into the general marketplace. The idea of getting a 20-page continuity (that isn't usually even a complete story in itself) for $4 is just not conducive to reaching out to the many potential comics readers out in the real world. NO retailers want to carry that product except for comic shop retailers (because they are pre-motivated sellers), and it's necessary for genres other than action/adventure type comic books to find those readers outside of the insular culture of comic book fandom. Casual comics readership needs to become a real possibility, with easy accessibility to the product, complete done-in-one stories, and a product with more pages that looks and feels like a substantial entertainment experience (that is more likely to be perceived by the average person as good value for money) for the comics reading experience to be considered viable by the average reader who hasn't been immersed in decades of comic book culture.

Since comic book collectors have come to accept the floppy comic format, and indeed prefer it, as the format of choice, they are completely blind to the many detractions it holds for the average person. The idea of needing to get the next issue, and the next, and the next... before you have a complete story.  The very fact that no retailers outside of comic book store owners want to carry that format ought to have been telling the comic book industry that, 30 or more years ago, but it was easier for publishers to persist in producing the same-old, same-old, as long there remained a rabid cult audience which demanded that very format for comics, because decades of programming made them comfortable with the thing they were most familiar with. The floppy comic was a good and economically-viable model for casual readers for a few decades, but has grown increasingly less so since at least the 1970s, and the industry just doesn't seem to want to acknowledge that the price-point/page-count/accessibility of purchase (non-direct distribution) issue is the one biggest thing that CAN be changed to get comics back out of the comic shop and into the real world of average readers.

All About Archie / Re: "Unknown Artists"
« on: July 10, 2017, 01:52:18 AM »
For many, many years Archie stories went uncredited and there were no records kept as to who did what on these stories.  This was especially the case with artists who didn't produce the volume of work of DeCarlo and Lucey. I know I've been present when the digest production crew's only option was to run certain stories past Victor Gorelick and hope that he remembered who worked on them. For the most part, he usually did!

For some reason, this problem with the credits extended to stories published as recently as the 90's. Occasionally, I was asked to confirm if I'd written or drawn a particular story that there was a question about.

In spite of this, I know mistakes were made and I've seen my name credited with work I haven't done. Most commonly, I'm credited as the writer on stories I haven't written.

All About Archie / Re: "Unknown Artists"
« on: July 08, 2017, 03:44:33 AM »
I was reading two Archie stories in a row, and both had "unknown" under the artist and/or pencilled credit. How in the world could ACP not know who did the artwork? It just seems odd...

The credits you DO see aren't always 100% correct, either. I know I catch mis-identified art credits on stories every so often, so you have to wonder about the other credits as well. I doubt that they have complete accounting records of who was paid for what story in which issue, so probably a lot of what's credited is based on Vic Gorelick's memory, or some digest editor's guesswork.

All About Archie / Re: "Unknown Artists"
« on: July 08, 2017, 02:40:53 AM »
For a small company like Archie Comics, it probably isn't easy searching through 75+ years worth of files, comics and other records to find out who did what in the hundreds of comics they've printed.  Some of it is bound to slip through the cracks.

Isn't Cheryl Blossom basically just Poison Ivy without the plant-powers anyway?  ;D

All About Archie / Re: Whew!
« on: June 24, 2017, 11:59:52 PM »
Here's Jughead "coming out of the closet"...

Makes you wonder, don't it? Exactly what DOES go on in the Supply Room closet at Riverdale High School???

All About Archie / Re: Whew!
« on: June 20, 2017, 10:35:57 PM »
nice images

General Discussion / Re: Days we look foward to as Archie Fans.
« on: June 15, 2017, 07:38:55 AM »
Jughead #16 is coming out on 6/28/17 which is 12 Days away
ALL-NEW CLASSIC ARCHIE: YOUR PAL, ARCHIE! is coming out on 7/26/17 & that's 40 days away

RIVERDALE #5 is coming out on 8/9/17 it's 54 days away
Archie #23 is coming out on 8/23/17, it's 68 days away.
ALL-NEW CLASSIC ARCHIE: YOUR PAL, ARCHIE! #2 is coming out on 8/30/17 is 75 days away
Season 2 premieres Wednesday, October 11th at 8pm on The CW! which is 117 days away.
They finally posted what Reggie & Me Volume #1's cover is going look like. I love it. So Only Reggie and Me Paperback – October 17, 2017 from & that's 123 Days & 16 Hours & 24 Minutes & 43 Seconds away.
111 Days till NYCC 2017-Oct 5 2017
161 Days till Black Friday 2017
164 Days till Cyber Monday 28 2017
192 Days till CHRISTMAS 2017
Life with Kevin Vol. 1 from amazon & it's Arriving Jan 16, 2018,- 214 days away

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 5

The Archie character names and likenesses are covered by the registered trademarks/copyrights of Archie Comic Publications, Inc. and are used with permission by this site. The Official Archie Comics website can be visited at
Live Support