I'm still a bit upset they paired the girl who didn't get chosen off with Reggie in both stories- it ruined the Betty/Jughead shipping opportunity XD!
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.Show posts Menu
Quote from: beatman10 on November 28, 2022, 09:19:11 PMI check out this series every now and then to see how this story is progressing. It's very slow moving and I have no clue where the storyline is heading to. Moose and Ethel are a couple right now but, I don't get a feeling they will last. It seems like most of the girls want to hook up with this Seth guy. The artwork is great but I don't understand why characters are drawn like munchkins whenever they get excited or emotional.That sounds like a very "anime" influence, looking at some of it. The big heads and such. A lot of artists like mimicking that even without the anime style.
Quote from: beatman10 on November 28, 2022, 09:59:13 PMIn the "Veronica" story, Mr. Lodge tries to frame Reggie for bribery and extortion. And then he lies to Veronica about Archie demanding a million dollar dowry before he would marry her. Mr. Lodge felt as long as Veronica was married to Archie, she would lack the killer instinct needed to take over Lodge industries.Mr. Lodge's meddling nearly ended their marriage. It didn't help that Veronica believed her "Daddy" over Archie. So yeah, Mr. Lodge was antagonistic to both Archie and Reggie.ahhhhhhhhh- I remember the "You MUST leave Betty for Veronica!" plot point! Yeah, that was wild, and seemed out of nowhere with Mr. Lodge as the bad guy.
In the "Betty" story , Mr. Lodge vowed to ruin Archie and anyone else associated with him for turning down his bribe to leave Betty and marry Veronica. It nearly worked until Veronica found out about it and got her father to leave her friends alone. From what I've read, most readers didn't like seeing Mr. Lodge as a villain.
I believe the storyline where Jughead marries Midge and Archie didn't know about it until after the fact was in the original "Archie Wedding" series. This was Mr. Uslan bringing out the "SURPRISE"!!! I kind of knew something would happen to Jughead because he said earlier in the story 'No girl trapped me!" Archie and Betty did go to Jughead's wedding in LWA issue #5 and are kind of shocked to see that Jug "finally noticed a girl".
If you go in with the mindset that the "10th Anniversary" is only a mini series and isn't trying to compete with the 4 year, 37 issue "Life With Archie" you may feel more positive about it. This really only focuses on what is going on with Archie's marriage(s) at the 10 year mark. There are some real issues discussed here that happen at that point in a marriage. And there are some surprises. Plue Archie doesn't die!!!!
Quote from: DeCarlo Rules on November 26, 2022, 03:59:02 PMThe major flaw is a lack of any general plan or direction (until looming cancellation forces one upon Kupperberg; i.e. "The Death of Archie"). The pendulum swings wide with Mr. Lodge initially as the seeming villain, and then (as things take a distinct turn towards more of a harder SF theme) seemingly Dilton Doiley... but then Kupperberg backs away on the SF angle (perhaps due to reader reaction?) shortly after launching a meandering plotline featuring Veronica's lost plane crossing into the Bettyverse. Sure the various twists kept readers on tenterhooks from issue to issue of the magazine, but read as a whole there's no real plot structure overall. Various characters' threads get lost in the miasma in the latter half.
ARCHIE: THE MARRIED LIFE 10th ANNIVERSARY has Mike Uslan back in the driver's seat again, but this time it's "10 Years Later" after the original "ARCHIE MARRIES..." (ARCHIE #600-606), and while incorporating some of Uslan's ideas from LIFE WITH ARCHIE Magazine #1, goes off on completely different tangents than Kupperberg's story did.
Quote from: Fernando Ruiz on November 28, 2016, 01:08:59 AMI'd love to hear this story about the "classic guys" learning that... well, the comics were rebranding without them. Especially now that the reboot has entirely fizzled out.Quote from: SAGG on November 25, 2016, 08:12:00 PMI've got two: What if ACP wanted to change the direction of Archie like they have now, but wanted to keep you Classic artists? Would you have any trouble doing what they wanted, or would you have felt uncomfortable with the change? What if they wanted you to change your artwork as well to match the change in the story retro-wise, something more "serious-looking"?
If Archie had opted to have the classic artists draw the reboot books, I would draw it just as I would any other job. I'd already modified my approach to the characters somewhat while I was drawing the Life With Archie magazine series. If ACP had wanted the looks of the characters modernized, I certainly, as a professional, would have no problem doing that. As a fan, of course, my preference would be for the characters to remain in their classic style! I have always worked very hard to remain a diverse artists capable of working in many styles, genres, and tones. Drawing a more serious or mature Archie simply would have been just another job for me.
At New York Comic con this year, I had my very first conversation with Archie president Mike Pellerito since my "departure" from Archie Comics. To his credit, the conversation came about at his suggestion and as an attempt to repair the relationship between Archie Comics and myself. (Rest assured nothing came of this.) In the course of this exchange, I'd suggestion that one of the reasons why my "dismissal" had been unnecessary was because I easily could've drawn any one of the reboot titles. He responded very quickly with, "It wouldn't have sold."
I have no illusions that a reboot title drawn by myself would've sold in the same numbers as the Fiona Staples drawn issues, but we would have seen a boost in sales simply from the reboot alone. We also would have seen that boost be far more sustainable since I would have stayed with the title far longer than Staples' three issues. (The book has been bleeding readers since she left!) Plus, with a more moderate modification, they would've had material that could more seamlessly be used in the digests further on down the line.
Unfortunately, Pellerito was fixated on using (however temporarily) "big names" and trying to use the "news" of a total stylistic overhaul both in terms of story and art to further bolster the "splash" they were looking to make. Admittedly, they did make a bit of a splash, but the ripples of that splash are very evidently waning now.
I may have to tell the wonderful, heart-warming story about how us "classic guys" first learned of the reboot. It's a beautiful story that is very pertinent to the Holiday season, but its a story for another time...
Quote from: DeCarlo Rules on November 07, 2019, 12:21:29 AMSeems like it's ignoring everything after LIFE WITH ARCHIE #1 (i.e., all of "The Married Life" stories written by Paul Kupperberg). I like the art (well, except for Dan's decision that an older Archie should have a huge jaw in order to distinguish him from teenage Archie), but it's still too soon for me to pass final judgment on it as a story. I plan to re-read the whole thing in one sitting sometime after the last issue is released (or I might just wait for the TP), and maybe I'll have a clearer feeling about it by then. Clearly it's not a sequel to the run of LIFE WITH ARCHIE as written by Kupperberg, though. Having re-read the whole prior Married Life story fairly recently, both the strengths and flaws inherent in that series became a lot more obvious to me. After reading the whole thing again, I revised my initial opinion downward in terms of plot and story continuity, but felt like where it stood out was in terms of character interaction scenes and dialogue (only possible where you have a lot of pages for that kind of stuff).I'm curious what you think the flaws were. Apologies if the re-read is now too long ago for you to remember XD.
That said, the story doesn't have anywhere near the same room to breath as the original LIFE WITH ARCHIE magazine, and the plot is necessarily compacted to fit into six standard-sized floppy comic issues -- which amounts to the same as only THREE magazine-sized issues of The Married Life, so it's hardly fair to compare one to the other as a complete series, either. Then again, I can recall the same sort of complaints about the final B&V story arc by Uslan and Parent. Either one is still miles better than what we're getting in the current ongoing ARCHIE title and miniseries like SABRINA.
Quote from: Fernando Ruiz on November 24, 2022, 09:38:23 PMNow in its second year, Life With Archie was drifting into a weird schizophrenic limbo of an existence. No one was sure what to do with it. Comic shops hated it because... well, it was an Archie product... but it was an oddly sized magazine so they didn't know what to do with it. Newsstand outlets were still shoving issues among their Tiger Beat magazines and other kiddie fare. This seemed incongruous with the magazine's adult storylines like "Miss Grundy dies of cancer" and "Homophobia runs rampant in Riverdale!"Oh man, amazing info! So glad I came to check out the forum for the first time in YEARS and find your post .
Quote from: Tuxedo Mark on November 09, 2017, 10:55:53 AMIt's simple:Quote from: Jabroniville on November 09, 2017, 09:35:56 AM
they have to pay staff to do nothing for hours on weekends
Huh?! Explain this, please.