* Random Image

Posted by: daren
Posted in album: daren

* Search

* Recent Topics

Archie & Me: Prank Attack by PTF
[June 17, 2018, 01:42:19 PM]

Super Suckers: That Lady is a Real Witch by PTF
[June 17, 2018, 12:52:44 PM]

Betty and Veronica Vixens coming to an end with issue 10 by DeCarlo Rules
[June 16, 2018, 02:26:26 PM]

Library Books That You All Read by BettyReggie
[June 16, 2018, 02:13:45 PM]

[June 16, 2018, 10:11:52 AM]

What comics have you been reading? by BettyReggie
[June 15, 2018, 08:49:58 AM]

Riverdale Reviewed by Tuxedo Mark
[June 14, 2018, 08:12:06 PM]

Latest Hauls, what did you buy? by Archiecomicxfan215
[June 12, 2018, 10:18:37 PM]

What have you done today? by BettyReggie
[June 12, 2018, 04:02:11 PM]

Here is Practical Explanation about Next Life, Purpose of Human Life, by xaa0
[June 11, 2018, 11:41:04 PM]

* Shoutbox

Refresh History
  • Tuxedo Mark: And another one: [link]
    June 14, 2018, 08:42:07 PM
  • Tuxedo Mark: Riverdale spoof: [link]
    June 14, 2018, 08:35:22 PM
  • Tuxedo Mark: My review of "Roughing It!" from B&V Friends #262: [link]
    June 14, 2018, 08:12:53 PM
  • DeCarlo Rules: @irishmoxie -- It's definitely complete. All six of the 1958-59 Sy Reit/Bob White original issues, plus the feature-length "Good Guys of the Galaxy" by Tom DeFalco & Fernando Ruiz from ARCHIE #655, and three 5-page digest shorts that guest-starred Cosmo -- and the complete first issue of the Ian Flynn/Tracy Yarley COSMO (2017) thrown in for good measure. It follows the same layout/format as the previous JUGHEAD'S TIME POLICE, even though that didn't carry the "Archie Comics Presents..." trade dress. Not a bad buy for $11.
    June 14, 2018, 01:08:59 AM
  • irishmoxie: Anyone get the Cosmo book that came out today? Any good?
    June 13, 2018, 08:04:49 PM
  • Cosmo: Ah man....and I was worried I was the last enthusiast for ERB's stuff. I'm currently rereading my Dell Tarzan books. Really good fun! It took a while to complete that run.
    June 12, 2018, 06:51:53 PM
  • DeCarlo Rules: ...Marvel's earlier JOHN CARTER, WARLORD OF MARS in there, so the DE Tarzan comics need to go in a different box, and SHEENA (also a recent DE title) and DC's RIMA THE JUNGLE GIRL will help fill up that box.
    June 11, 2018, 07:40:48 PM
  • DeCarlo Rules: Recently. DE's unauthorized LORD OF THE JUNGLE Tarzan adaptations (and its authorized THE GREATEST ADVENTURE) won't fit into my existing box of previous Tarzan comics from Gold Key, DC, and Dark Horse, so I have to start a new box. Logically these get filed with DE's unauthorized WARLORD OF MARS comics (including DEJAH THORIS) and their authorized JOHN CARTER, WARLORD OF MARS. But I also want to squeeze Marve;
    June 11, 2018, 07:38:48 PM
  • DeCarlo Rules: Interesting. I tend not to group titles by publisher at all, if the characters were not created as work-for-hire (meaning the publisher is legally considered the 'author' of the character). Do they belong to that publisher's "universe" (assuming it has one)? There are some publishers like Dynamite Entertainment where the vast majority of the titles they publish are licensed, and thus were "inherited" from other publishers. Therefore it makes more sense to me to group them together in boxes with similar characters. Flash Gordon, The Phantom, and Mandrake comics (regardless of who the actual publisher was) go together in the same box because they're all classic adventure heroes licensed from Hearst Entertainment (formerly King Features Syndicate). Pulp fiction heroes like The Shadow, Doc Savage, and The Spider (regardless of the fact that the latter did not originate with the same publisher as the first two) also get grouped together. Space considerations allowing, Tarzan (and other Edgar Rice Burroughs adaptations) might share the same box with Sheena and Rima, but NOT with Ka-Zar, because he's a Marvel Universe character.
    June 11, 2018, 07:16:22 PM
  • rusty: I do keep all Star Trek series together in their own section and all Star Wars books together.  I also keep all 2000AD titles together and manga books get their own section.  For titles that have switched publishers, I usually keep them all with the publisher that I identify them with the most.  Tarzan has been published by a variety of publishers, but I keep them with Dell/Gold Key.  Conan is starting to get a bit close with all the success Dark Horse has had, but I still identify Conan more with Marvel.
    June 11, 2018, 06:27:26 PM
  • DeCarlo Rules: Believe it or not, I even have a box labeled "Pseudo-manga" that contains comics published by American companies and created by American creators like Astro Boy & Racer X (Now Comics), Battle of the Planets (Gold Key & Top Cow/Image), Captain Harlock (Malibu), Godzilla (Dark Horse) and Ultraman. I just want to keep those separate from the boxes of real translated manga in floppy comic format.
    June 11, 2018, 03:34:17 PM
  • DeCarlo Rules: Well. the problem is when you get titles with licensed characters that aren't owned by the publisher. So if you collect Star Trek comics, you'd have different series published by Gold Key, Marvel, DC, and IDW (and I probably missed one in there). It doesn't make sense to me to put them in different boxes by publisher, but to each his own. Disney comics would be another example. There are even some instances where if I like a certain artist enough, I will put all his work regardless of publisher or characters into one box, like Paul Gulacy, Steve Rude, or Mike Allred (and file them chronologically from older to newer, rather than alphabetically). Those are examples where my interest in the creator far exceeds my relative interest in whatever characters are involved.
    June 11, 2018, 03:14:29 PM
  • rusty: That makes sense.  There are many ways that people can file books.  What I do is file by company or category and then alphabetically within each section.  My first category is Richie Rich then Archie, then other Harvey titles, then Disney, then other humor/kids books, then by company (unless it is a company where I don't have very many books from them.  Star Trek and Star Wars each get their own section as well.  I will probably revamp a bit when I do my next major sort/merge.  The biggest section by far for me is DC.
    June 11, 2018, 09:28:59 AM
  • DeCarlo Rules: I don't even file my comics alphabetically. I file them according to how closely they're related to other titles, but it's all dependent on the number of issues I have of any given title, and what will fit into a single box. Fpr ACP comics I just put all the short-run series (whether an actual miniseries or just a not particularly successful title) into one box. Even though some of those short run series star Jughead, and I could as easily file those together with the main JUGHEAD title in another box. For longer running ACP titles, "girl" titles are sorted into different boxes than "boy" titles. Eventually when I have enough issues of BETTY (and BETTY AND ME and BETTY'S DIARY) they'll get their own box, and VERONICA will get her own box.
    June 10, 2018, 09:49:06 AM
  • rusty: I file Jughead under J and Reggie under R in all of their incarnations, though I do file the original Lois Lane and Jimmy Olsen books under S since that keeps them with the Superman books and also because they kept that title throughout their entire run.  If anyone wants to look up Jughead or Reggie in Overstreet, though, they will have to look under A for the early issues.
    June 10, 2018, 07:56:27 AM
  • BettyReggie: I can't wait to get that Reggie book. It's coming out the day after my 39th Birthday.
    June 10, 2018, 06:42:06 AM
  • DeCarlo Rules: Yeah, I never understood why publishers felt the need to point that out on the covers of a comic book, like maybe someone didn't really know who REGGIE was, and might buy it just because they noticed the words "Archie's Rival" above the big letters that spelled REGGIE? Same with "Archie's Pal" or "Superman's Pal" or "Superman's Girl Friend" -- like some potential buyer wouldn't know who Jughead, Jimmy Olsen, or Lois Lane was, but would know who Archie or Superman was? Just assume you're selling the product to idiots, I guess. Is anyone really filing REGGIE under "A" for Archie's Pal in their collections??
    June 10, 2018, 05:42:02 AM
  • rusty: In it's first incarnation, Reggie was titled ARCHIE'S RIVAL, REGGIE.  It wasn't until after the title was resurrected nearly a decade later that it became REGGIE and then REGGIE AND ME.
    June 09, 2018, 10:23:13 PM
  • Tuxedo Mark: I've never understood why those old titles had "and Me" in them, anyway. Why not just name the titles after the starring characters?
    June 09, 2018, 08:17:45 PM
  • DeCarlo Rules: Funny that the trade paperback collection is entitled REGGIE AND ME Vol. 1, when his floppy comic book series was actually titled just plain REGGIE for the first 18 issues (and going on hiatus for nine years in between issues #14 and 15). Since it's only a 224-page book, that should mean we'll be seeing reprints of stories from the first 9 (or maybe 10) issues. So shouldn't it be titled REGGIE Vol. 1? Unless they actually do plan to start the first volume with issue #19 from 1966 (the first classic Evilheart issue) where the title actually changed to REGGIE AND ME. My theory is that the ME in that title = Evilheart, unlike the prior titles ARCHIE AND ME (where ME = Mr. Weatherbee), or BETTY AND ME (where the ME = Archie).
    June 09, 2018, 12:59:59 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 ... 23
General Comics / Re: 'Dandy' Dan De in "BINGO to GO-GO!"
« on: May 14, 2018, 11:18:56 PM »
Curious. In the second comic, DeCarlo drew this for another comic book publisher in 1966? He was making his mark in ACP then, yet they let him do some freelancing? 🤔

General Discussion / Re: What comics have you been reading?
« on: April 15, 2018, 03:13:40 PM »

When I want to read any old comics on Comixology, I use the Unlimited subscription package. When I finish a book, I just return it. Very practical for me....

Not very practical if what you're looking to read is an issue of BINKY'S BUDDIES, DEBBI'S DATES, or ANGEL LOVE... or THAT WILKIN BOY or MADHOUSE GLADS from the late 1960s or early 1970s. Obscure older titles just don't attract enough readers to be viable candidates to be digitized, unless they're so old that the copyrights have entered public domain. There are torrents, I guess, if issues about piracy don't bother you.
Torrents? Please.  :D I'm aiming for more generalized comics in the mainstream, like DC or Marvel. Many old titles come out on occasion. As for Archie, it's old digests that can be borrowed as well...

The thing about a back issue is that you know that it was published, so it has to exist somewhere. Not so for digital comics, which only exist if the companies who hold the copyrights to a printed comic book consider it worthwhile digitizing... if they think there's a market for it from which the publisher can generate some extra profit. It's incredibly frustrating to me that I'll never be able to read hundreds of pages of comics that Dan DeCarlo drew for Marvel in the 1950s (MILLIE THE MODEL, SHERRY THE SHOWGIRL, MY FRIEND IRMA, and on and on), because nobody at Marvel considers those issues worth making available in digital format. You might think that anything Marvel or DC ever published that was worth reading would have been reprinted or digitized by now, but only a small fraction of what they've published over 80 years or so has been.

Ditto for Archie Comics, which still hasn't digitized hundreds of its published comics from the 1960s, like JOSIE. Only a scant few of the published stories are available in digital format, appearing in digests or collections. As back issues, many of those JOSIEs are extremely difficult to find or prohibitively expensive as collectibles for all but the most well-heeled of comic book collectors.

When it comes to public domain material, where the copyright on the original comics has expired, it only takes ONE person with a copy of that comic book and a desire to share his or her love of the stories with other readers to scan it and upload it to one of the existing public domain comic book websites, as a labor of love.

I could sit here and make lists of hundreds of comic books (or just individual stories) that I know exist and would love to read, but I will never be able to read or own, due to the relatively few copies of the printed comics still in existence, most of them locked away in private collections, or too expensive for me to ever afford as collectibles. It's incredibly frustrating, so I have to make due with what I can find in lesser conditions, catch as catch can, while rifling though longboxes of cheap old back issues. At least those comics you can see and examine, to discover what the contents of the comic book are. Unless you know that a particular comic contains stories or work by a particular artist that you want to read, you'd never even look for or at it.

My feeling is that I'm never going to prefer a digital comic if it's just something that's commonly available as a print comic. If they both cost the same and are just as available, why would I want the digital version? It's only attractive to me if it's something I can't otherwise get as a real book, or a cheap replica of an otherwise expensive or hard-to-find collectible. Public domain Golden Age comics that have been scanned and are FREE are a major attraction by comparison to expensive, uncommonly found, and physically fragile paper collectibles from the 1940s or 50s, and so are Japanese manga scanned and translated by otaku, that wouldn't otherwise be available to read in English. Other than those type of things it's hard for me to see where they have any superiority over print comics.
Got something for you:
Couldn't find the other two, but at least it has one....

General Discussion / Re: What comics have you been reading?
« on: April 14, 2018, 11:18:22 PM »
When I want to read any old comics on Comixology, I use the Unlimited subscription package. When I finish a book, I just return it. Very practical for me....

Not very practical if what you're looking to read is an issue of BINKY'S BUDDIES, DEBBI'S DATES, or ANGEL LOVE... or THAT WILKIN BOY or MADHOUSE GLADS from the late 1960s or early 1970s. Obscure older titles just don't attract enough readers to be viable candidates to be digitized, unless they're so old that the copyrights have entered public domain. There are torrents, I guess, if issues about piracy don't bother you.
Torrents? Please.  :D I'm aiming for more generalized comics in the mainstream, like DC or Marvel. Many old titles come out on occasion. As for Archie, it's old digests that can be borrowed as well...

General Discussion / Re: What comics have you been reading?
« on: April 14, 2018, 04:57:46 AM »
Quick question, DR: Where are you getting these comics, from print, digital, or both?  ???

Mostly NOT digital, unless you see me list a title that's pre-Code, and public domain (those are available for free browsing and downloads at such sites as the Digital Comic Museum and Comic Book Plus).

Generally, these are just a result of my rummaging through the longboxes of 50-cent comics at my LCS. Every few weeks it seems like new acquisitions from somebody's collection make their way into the store. If I had more time, and was better organized and systematic in my sifting through these boxes, I could undoubtedly find more old comics than I do; but as it is, a lot of my time is taken up looking through and reading this week's new comics. I'm always keeping an eye out for comic book obscura, those titles that are short-lived, from tiny (sometimes unheard-of) publishers or self-published, and genres generally unpopular with comic book collectors (like teen humor or romance comics), or just anything oddball or retro-looking. You have to sift through hundreds, if not thousands, of titles from Marvel, DC, Image, and other well-known publishers to find the off-trail titles, the ones collected only by the rare few. Mostly what I find are comics that have been READ (in fact, often "read to death"), but not COLLECTED by anyone per se... merely saved, but in a casual manner that indicates that the last owner didn't place much value on them (unless they're pretty recent, from the last few decades, and so didn't receive much handling; read but once, and stuck in a box somewhere). Often they are falling apart, crumbling with age and flaking apart if 40 or more years old; with tears, folded corners, rips and hand-written on by kids (often kids would write their names on the covers, or doodle on the cover or interior pages using pens of various colors).

If I happen upon Archie titles (or ANY teen humor title), it's always worth at least flipping through to see what's in it. Since I know the owner of the store and have been friends with him for many years, I often take a stack home to read, then return most of them a few days or a week later (except the maybe 10-20% that may be of particular interest, and in better than 'fair' condition). Since other customers rarely seek these kind of titles, it's NBD if they disappear from those 50-cent boxes for a week or so. Rarely, if it's an older one even in the most beat-up condition, I may keep it (bagging and boarding it to prevent it falling into even worse condition, even though it's practically worthless as a collectible) if it contains some stories I haven't seen reprinted elsewhere.
When I want to read any old comics on Comixology, I use the Unlimited subscription package. When I finish a book, I just return it. Very practical for me....

General Discussion / Re: What comics have you been reading?
« on: April 13, 2018, 07:44:41 PM »
04-05 to 04-11-18:
HEART THROBS #1, 2, & 4 (of 4) [Vertigo 1999]
COWBOY LOVE nn [1998]
THRILLING LOVE 3-D [3-D ZONE #17, 1989]
TRUER THAN TRUE ROMANCE:  Classic Love Comics Retold! TP by Jeanne Martinet [Jun. 2001]
MARVEL ROMANCE REDUX: Another Kind of Love TP [Feb. 2007]
(of 7)
BINKY'S BUDDIES #6 (Dec. 1969)
THAT WILKIN BOY #14 (Sept. 1971)
MADHOUSE GLADS #80 (Sept. 1971)
JUGHEAD #7 (Aug. 1988)
LAUGH #284 (Dec. 1974)
BETTY AND VERONICA #35 (Nov. 1990)
BETTY AND VERONICA #90 (Aug. 1995)
BETTY #14 (Jun. 1994)
ARCHIE 3000! #10 (Aug. 1990)
(of 4)
DRY COUNTY #2 (of ?)
(one-shot) [Jan. 2013]
Quick question, DR: Where are you getting these comics, from print, digital, or both?  ???

All About Archie / Re: Life with Archie (Warning: Possible Spoilers)
« on: April 11, 2018, 11:21:22 PM »
One big question in my mind is "Why would a cancerous breast tumor be treated by chemotherapy, causing Cheryl's hair to fall out?" Aren't localized cancerous tumors normally dealt with by surgery? A breast tumor would definitely be caught early enough to prevent the cancer spreading to vital organs where it couldn't be neatly cut out by surgeons. I admit I'm no cancer expert, so maybe I'm way off-base there.

No idea. Cheryl had already had the mastectomy, and her hair had already fallen out, by the time that she called Jason (when she was about to come home). No idea how she managed to pay for it. She hadn't told Jason anything about it until the phone call (by which point she was in fragile shape). Maybe she told her parents, they paid, and she swore them to secrecy. Dunno.
I'd figure her parents would foot the bill. When they found out her condition, of course they would come to her aid. She's their daughter....

All About Archie / Re: Life with Archie (Warning: Possible Spoilers)
« on: April 07, 2018, 10:37:45 PM »
I glanced at bits and pieces of LWA, but I just had the time to read it from the beginning. When I saw the volumes, I started. That's how I approach reading older comics. I get the whole thing in a major storyline at one time.... 😁

All About Archie / Re: Life with Archie (Warning: Possible Spoilers)
« on: April 07, 2018, 09:59:51 AM »

And what happened to Miss Grundy in the AMV universe? She died in the AMB universe, but I didn't see her at all in the other one. I guess the writers had AMB be Riverdale High-centric for the AMB universe, and deliberately Riverdale City-centric in the AMV universe. So many loose threads remain, with Mirth and that woman with him. Hey, maybe we can get Mr. Ruiz to fill in the blanks, since he did one of the stories! Was the ending rushed, or something? Also, Bella Beazley was the scheming redhead in the AMB universe, while Cheryl Blossom was the now-sympathetic redhead in the AMV universe. 

Also again, did anyone notice that the ending of LWA coincided with the beginning of the "new" Archie? I think LWA was the "farewell" for Classic Archie (outside of the new stories for the digests), and it fulfilled the "what if" scenario of fans wondering what it would look like if Archie and his friends grew up and dealt with the Real World. Hey, DR, everybody, which story did you prefer? AMV? AMB?

All About Archie / Life with Archie (Warning: Possible Spoilers)
« on: April 06, 2018, 11:30:32 PM »
I just finished reading it through Comixology in the volumes. I'd recommend using the Unlimited service to just "borrow" a published book, then when you finish it, "return" it. You'd pay a monthly fee. I think it's worth it, but I digress. On to the story, or in this case, stories, since there are two of them, with Archie either marrying Betty (AMB) or Veronica (AMV).

Both universes had good stories in the soap opera style, if you're into that sort of thing. LWA was unique in that it showed The Gang & Co. all as adults, not as a dream, but as actual, real stories. I found myself referring the AMB universe as the more realistic storyline, though the AMV one may have been the more exciting storyline with the Fred Mirth angle. However,  I wonder what happened to him? Did he vanish from the face of the earth? Dangling plot device unanswered.

That little crossover between the two stories was interesting, but I had some confusion because Archie seemed to be all over the place as he and his other self switched places. Seeing Ambrose was nice, but having him as the "connection" between the two realities was strange at best, but I  guess the writers had to explain how the realities merged. I think I'm glad he settled in the AMB universe. He seemed far better a fit there.

I'm speeding it up a bit to the end, obviously with Archie's death as the main plotline. I noticed that the writers shrewdly "merged" both universes because I couldn't tell which one was which. Maybe it didn't matter, which was the point.

I've obviously skipped several points, which I hope others here will chime in on. What do you guys think? Thanks....

All About Archie / Archie and Friends Digital Digest...
« on: March 17, 2018, 09:55:45 AM »
...Is available on Comixology. However, 99 cents for only 11 pages?  ???  No way, pass....

All About Archie / Re: Whew!
« on: March 06, 2018, 04:22:04 PM »
HUGE slew of stories added to my third album! B & V, Miss Grundy, Ronica, an Archie one, and a Pat Kennedy one that has a several-part Josie and the Pussycats story! be sure to use the A-Z direction sort in the lower right corner! Enjoy!  :D

"Music For the Masses" is drawn by Rex Lindsay, not Pat Kennedy. In fact, while you may be able to find a few exceptions to this rule, JOSIE over the course of its history has really mainly been the product of only 4 pencilers... Dan DeCarlo and Stan Goldberg (from 1963-1982 in Josie's 1st series), then as a backup feature from the mid-1980s through most of the 1990s, pretty much Stan Goldberg by himself (although Al Bigley did a few, and DeCarlo drew some new stories for the two issues of JOSIE volume 2), and then during the heyday of the Pussycats being promoted to the lead feature in ARCHIE & FRIENDS in anticipation of the characters appearing in their own feature film, first Rex Lindsay and then Holly Golightly. When the movie came and went and failed to greatly increase the number of new JOSIE readers, it reverted to a backup feature in A&F once more, with Rex Lindsay and Stan Goldberg sharing the penciling duties between them for a little while, although eventually, Rex moved on so he could devote most of his time to JUGHEAD, and Stan finished out the run of the feature in A&F (which only lasted until Tania Del Rio briefly turned it into a manga, just before the 100th issue). In terms of page counts, the total number of pages of JOSIE stories contributed by pencilers other than those four (not counting their guest appearances in ARCHIE, of course) is pretty negligible. In fact, even Rex and Holly's number of pages don't add up to much when compared to Dan and Stan's.
My apologies, DR. Thank you for the correction.  :-[ I got the two mixed up. Why did I do that?  ??? :idiot2: :D

All About Archie / Re: Whew!
« on: March 05, 2018, 01:32:09 PM »
HUGE slew of stories added to my third album! B & V, Miss Grundy, Ronica, an Archie one, and a Pat Kennedy one that has a several-part Josie and the Pussycats story! be sure to use the A-Z direction sort in the lower right corner! Enjoy!  :D

All About Archie / Re: Classic Betty & Veronica is BACK for $2.99
« on: February 20, 2018, 09:48:57 AM »
I 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.
I think you'd like Black Panther, DR. It's VERY good. I saw it Monday....

All About Archie / Re: Story Jumps In Newest Archie Jumbo Digest
« on: February 18, 2018, 07:44:11 PM »
Sounds like a printing error.  I checked my copy of #286 and assume that you are talking about the Ski the World story.  In my digest, Page 10 is on the back of Page 9 and then the story ends on Page 11 with a little END box in the last panel.  The back of that page starts The Andrews Family Tree story.
I'll have to read again. I didn't see page 10 or 11.....

All About Archie / Re: Story Jumps In Newest Archie Jumbo Digest
« on: February 18, 2018, 03:50:28 PM »
Anybody else got this? It's the one where The Gang are following Ronica around the world to ski resorts. I've seen this before in other Archie digests. Why doesn't ACP make sure they're giving us the stories in their whole form? Somebody's not editing right. I mean, we've seen words being misspelled and such, but splitting stories is outright incompetence....  >:(

You mean it's a story which breaks down into several chapters, but somehow or other they didn't print the chapters together one after the other,  but instead spread them out and interspersed other reprints between the chapters? Or did they only print one chapter of a multi-chapter story and forget about the rest of it altogether?
Both. They actually did both...

Could it possibly one of those rare continued stories where the next part originally appeared in the following issue (and would presumably be reprinted in the next issue of the same digest)? Or did they edit the story it in such a way that at least the story ended on one of those "punch line" gags?
Well, it just...ended. I think it was on page 9. There was no "to be continued"....

Hmm... that sure sounds like an editorial mistake, unless it's just your individual copy of that particular issue that got messed up at the printers, and is missing pages. What issue # was it? I stopped getting it with Archie Jumbo Comics Digest #285 (January), which sounds like it's the previous issue. A timely decision on my part, it would seem.
Yep, you did. 😁 Number 286....

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 23

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