collapse

* Random Image

AftertheGame3
AftertheGame3
Posted by: SAGG
Posted in album: SAGG

* Search


* Recent Topics

What comics have you been reading? by DeCarlo Rules
[Today at 08:53:26 AM]


What have you done today? by Archiecomicxfan215
[November 20, 2017, 08:45:28 PM]


What are you currently watching? by Archiecomicxfan215
[November 20, 2017, 08:43:16 PM]


Library Books That You All Read by BettyReggie
[November 20, 2017, 06:01:47 PM]


Latest Hauls, what did you buy? by BettyReggie
[November 20, 2017, 04:43:38 PM]


Days we look foward to as Archie Fans. by BettyReggie
[November 20, 2017, 11:22:36 AM]


Archie Charm Bracelet Search by Pamtherese
[November 17, 2017, 09:24:44 PM]


Riverdale season two episode three. by Upsiditus
[November 16, 2017, 10:08:46 PM]


Riverdale, season 2, episodes 5-6 by Tuxedo Mark
[November 16, 2017, 08:17:46 PM]


Archie Comics February 2018 Solicitations by DeCarlo Rules
[November 16, 2017, 04:15:09 AM]

* Shoutbox

Refresh History
  • Tuxedo Mark: Cami did a photo shoot for Men's Health: [link]
    Today at 09:02:23 AM
  • Tuxedo Mark: Anyone willing to beta-read my Sabrina fic and offer feedback?
    November 21, 2017, 09:48:12 PM
  • Tuxedo Mark: Haha: [link]
    November 20, 2017, 08:21:32 PM
  • Ronny G: The latest Betty and Veronica digest arrived in the mail today! YAY!!!!
    November 16, 2017, 08:14:15 PM
  • BettyReggie: Jughead Volume #3 came from Amazon today.
    November 14, 2017, 04:16:35 PM
  • Jabroniville: Has anyone seen Zach Ziggster since the forums had to be re-set? I miss that guy.
    November 14, 2017, 04:25:23 AM
  • Tuxedo Mark: *Andre
    November 13, 2017, 10:27:19 AM
  • Tuxedo Mark: Adre finally did a new Riverdale recap: [link]
    November 13, 2017, 10:27:05 AM
  • Jabroniville: Is MA3 ending then? I was never a HUGE fan, but that's too bad for her. Ten years is a HUGE run!
    November 13, 2017, 03:44:17 AM
  • DeCarlo Rules: I thought the ad money was only a piece of the webcomics big picture, with the other pieces being commission work and print collections of past webcomics, and word-of-mouth that leads to paying assignments from established publishers. It seems like Gisele just has too much talent to stay out of the game for long, and if nothing else, minus the expenses of hosting and time spent creating webcomics, she ought to be able to make a living just doing covers (which pay better than interior pages), if nothing else.
    November 12, 2017, 06:23:36 AM
  • irishmoxie: Apparently the ad money for webcomics couldn't pay her living expenses anymore.
    November 11, 2017, 08:38:24 PM
  • DeCarlo Rules: Aw, dang. I hope Gisele gets a regular print comic series going. Hopefully that's the only reason she's quitting webcomics.
    November 11, 2017, 03:40:31 AM
  • irishmoxie: Gisele posted on her Facebook that she's quitting webcomics. Kinda sad though I really only liked MA3.
    November 10, 2017, 02:20:19 PM
  • irishmoxie: The first two issues of the Annual.
    November 10, 2017, 02:19:39 PM
  • DeCarlo Rules: The Archie Annuals actually ran from 1950 to 1975 (after that they continued as digests). Does ComiXology have all 26 of the comic book-sized Annuals?
    November 09, 2017, 02:36:54 PM
  • irishmoxie: They're selling the old Archie Annuals from 40s and 50s on ComiXology
    November 09, 2017, 12:45:20 PM
  • DeCarlo Rules: @queenhenny - My copy of WOA 73 had all the correct pages.
    November 09, 2017, 08:57:20 AM
  • queenhenny: For me its The Chatty Charioteer to It Must be Magic, as well as a one-pager and a game
    November 07, 2017, 10:16:36 PM
  • queenhenny: Just purchased World of Archie Double Digest 73 (the Christmas Annual)... does anyone else's copy reprint the same chunk of stories (about thirty pages) twice?
    November 07, 2017, 10:16:07 PM
  • Tuxedo Mark: Veronica cosplay: [link]
    November 07, 2017, 12:26:57 PM

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
1
All About Archie / Re: Trula Twyst (Jughead's nemesis)
« on: November 08, 2017, 11:46:54 AM »
I think a lot of his attitude towards women comes from seeing how Veronica (and others like Cheryl) treats Archie like crap even though he is too much of a lapdog for her (her fickleness doesn't help either).

2
General Discussion / Re: What comics have you been reading?
« on: October 17, 2017, 10:41:37 PM »
Today (10-17):
Both of these digests have a cover price of $6.99 -- but the B&V Halloween Annual has 192 pages, and Archie & Me Digest #1 has only 128 pages.

BETTY & VERONICA HALLOWEEN ANNUAL #257 - Despite irishmoxie's complaint over the low incidence of true Halloween stories in the B&V Annual (which is a fair assessment), the overall quality of most of these story pages is pretty high, and I'd rate the contents as being between 70-80% "above average" stories. There's a fair amount of pages of Dan DeCarlo artwork, and a fair amount of pages of Dan Parent artwork, probably a higher percentageof those two artists than found in any other digest title (and seeing as how they are among my favorite of all the regular Archie artists, that is a very good thing). Of course there are also some Stan Goldberg and Jeff Shultz stories, as you would pretty much expect in any B&V digest. It has a good amount of variety too, with Sabrina, Josie, and Cheryl Blossom stories (by Holly G) in addition to the B&V stories, and Veronica and Betty solo stories. I don't have a clue why they moved the Josie and Cheryl stories from B&V Friends, where they formerly appeared regularly, to the regular B&V title, but it only makes this a better digest title. It's true that of the 192 pages in the digest, 14 of them are advertising pages, so that leaves 178 - and out of those, 2 of them are puzzle pages, which I just glance at briefly and skip over. There's also a 2-page Halloween Quiz (from one of the old B&V Spectacular magazine-style comics) -- but I actually enjoyed reading that -- and a 5-page feature on ideas for throwing a Halloween party, illustrated by Dan Parent (again, from one of those old B&V Spec's) that actually has some pretty good ideas, if you were thinking of throwing a Halloween Bash. Ironically, the few pages of Halloween-themed stories contained here are among the weakest stories in this issue. There were 2 or 3 of the older classic reprints that I'd rate as absolute gems, however. And best of all, no pages wasted on "Little" B&V stories by Dexter Taylor - those I always skip, so this digest contains virtually no wasted pages, apart from the obligatory ads and those 2 puzzle pages (that's actually a pretty low number of puzzle pages by Annual standards).

ARCHIE AND ME COMICS DIGEST #1 - Vegan Jughead was right about this one. It's among the worst digests Archie Comics has ever published. Oh, the new 5-pager written by Dan Parent and drawn by Jeff Shultz (nice to see new stories by him, BTW) is great. When Dan writes a classic Archie story, he's on-target 90% of the time or better, and all of the returning former classic Archie artists are turning in great work, in most cases some of the best art they've ever done. It's all downhill after those first 5 pages, though. This digest had, out of its 128 pages, 10 pages of ads, so that leaves 118 pages of stories. AND 23 of those pages were devoted to "Archie Babies" -- which I flipped through and didn't read. Hey, here's an idea... why not devote 15 to 24 pages in a digest title to stories about "Octogenarian Archie & Friends"?? Sound like something you'd want to read, eh? Well, frankly... even THAT would be more interesting to me than any of the reprints involving Baby, Little, or "The New Archies" versions of the characters. It's a complete waste of paper, as far as I'm concerned. That left me with 95 pages of story, and of those, most of them are pretty run-of-the-mill. I'd say LESS THAN HALF of those pages were above average stories, so considering the cover price here, and the lack of anything compelling me to buy this, I'd rate it as an absolute "NOT BUY". About the nicest thing I can say about the reprint pages is that at least they had the courtesy to skip the puzzle pages (but they could have put 23 of them in here instead of Archie Babies, and it wouldn't have made a difference to me). If I hadn't already pre-ordered issues #2 & #3, I'd probably skip them -- and if things follow the usual pattern, I'm pretty sure those issues will ALSO be filled with 23-page "Archie Babies" sections! Am I ever glad I didn't subscribe to this! UGH!

3
General Discussion / Re: What comics have you been reading?
« on: September 21, 2017, 01:49:23 AM »
09-20-17:
BUG: THE ADVENTURES OF FORAGER #4 (of 6)
FUTURE QUEST PRESENTS SPACE GHOST #2 (of ?)
WONDER WOMAN '77/BIONIC WOMAN #6 (of 6)
WONDER WOMAN/CONAN #1 (of 6)
ACTION COMICS #987
DARK NIGHTS: METAL #2 (of 6)
DARK NIGHTS: BATMAN THE RED DEATH #1 (one-shot)
BATMAN: BATMAN DAY 2017 SPECIAL EDITION #1
HARLEY QUINN: BATMAN DAY 2017 SPECIAL EDITION #1
DC SUPER HERO GIRLS: BATMAN DAY 2017 SPECIAL EDITION #1
RICK & MORTY: POCKET LIKE YOU STOLE IT #3 (of 5)
BLACK HAMMER #13
MICRONAUTS: WRATH OF KARZA #5 (of 5)
STREET FIGHTER VS DARKSTALKERS #5 (of 8 )
KAIJUMAX: SEASON 3 #3 (of 6)
BLOOD BOWL: MORE GUTS, MORE GLORY #4 (of 4)
WOLFENSTEIN #1 (of 2)
INFINI-T FORCE GN VOL 01: ARC TO THE FUTURE
DRAGONS RIOTING GN VOL 01-07

4
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.

5
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.

6
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.

7
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.

8
General Discussion / Re: What comics have you been reading?
« on: July 29, 2017, 09:51:10 AM »
GPF    http://www.gpf-comics.com


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
Everafter
Frostbite
Red Thorn
Unfollow
Flintstones
Future Quest
Scooby Doo (several titles)
Batman '66 Meets Wonder Woman '77


9
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!

10
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.

11
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.


12
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.

13
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.

14
Isn't Cheryl Blossom basically just Poison Ivy without the plant-powers anyway?  ;D

15
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???

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 www.archiecomics.com.
Live Support