Quote from: daren on April 17, 2016, 07:21:55 PM
Yeah but Veronica is causing the conflict, it's indirect if it's supposed to be about Archie. Wouldn't it be better to say Mrs. Cooper instead of Mr. Cooper too?

Veronica can be demanding and even rude at times, but even she wouldn't talk to to the adult Mrs. Cooper that way on the telephone. I can't imagine why you'd think she would.

Quote from: daren on April 17, 2016, 07:16:32 PM
But Archie isn't in the story DeCarlo Rules posted.

Mrs. Cooper tells Mr. Cooper (on the other end of the telephone) that Betty is upstairs in her room with Archie. Mr. Cooper is upset about the idea of his teenage daughter being up in her room alone with Archie, and asks what they're doing up there. Mrs. Cooper replies "I think he's tinkering with her turntable, dear." (Meaning, he's trying to fix her record player.) That sounds like some kind of euphemism for fooling around to Mr. Cooper, and just makes him madder. It's really not that complicated, Daren. Mrs. Cooper obviously trusts Betty enough that she feels okay with leaving her up there with Archie unsupervised, but the idea makes the overprotective Mr. Cooper nervous. Also see this story.

As for my title to this thread, those adults whom Archie causes to get upset or irate, should start a support group. I left Fred Andrews out of that list, because as Archie's father, he'd be as likely to defend him against the others' complaints as to agree with them. Miss Grundy could also be a part of that group, but it seems to me that her annoyances stem from her students in general (Jughead, Reggie, Veronica, Moose included) either not being studious and responsible in doing their assignments and paying attention, or otherwise disrupting her classroom somehow so that she can't teach. Ultimately though, any serious problems Miss Grundy has with Archie become Mr. Weatherbee's headache.

Now the exact nature of the perturbation among Mr. Weatherbee, Mr. Lodge, and Mr. Cooper differs. In Mr. Cooper's case, since Archie spends much less time hanging around his house than he does at the Lodge mansion, his problem is not as serious - but his worries do extend to anytime that Archie and Betty might be spending alone together, and not in public. His major concern with Archie is that he can see how easily Betty swoons in his presence, so his chief worry is with any hanky-panky that might be going on between them when someone isn't there to keep a watchful eye on them. Although it's hardly ever been mentioned by him outright (I can think of only one story that might qualify), another irksome point against Archie in Mr. Cooper's view of him is the way Archie treats his daugher as second fiddle to Veronica Lodge. Not that he bears any ill will towards Veronica about this, but of course Hal Cooper is very protective and rightfully proud of Betty, and the fact that Archie causes Betty any hurt must make him very angry at times. Now, we don't see Hal Cooper's interactions with Archie anywhere near as much as we do Mr. Lodge's and Mr. Weatherbee's. Most of the time, he seems like a quiet man, and an even-tempered parent, and this is attributable to the fact that as long as having Archie around seems to make Betty happy, all is good. BUT, if Archie should ever try to take advantage of his little girl, or break Betty's heart... you get the impression that Hal Cooper is the mostly likely one to snap, and go on a rampage with a shotgun.

Mr. Lodge's concerns are different -- he's annoyed at how much time Archie spends hanging around his house in general, and concerned at the potential chaos and destruction he causes to his home and anything in it (plus Hiram himself always seems to be the target of slapstick physical comedy involving Archie). What the two fathers of Betty and Veronica have in common is that they both think Archie is poor boyfriend material (or potential son-in-law material... GASP!) who is unworthy of their daughters (and of course, they're both right).

Mr. Weatherbee's problems with Archie somewhat overlap Mr. Lodge's in the chaos-and-disruption category, but in some ways (since he's not relating to Archie as a potential son-in-law) he sees Archie differently, and acknowledges that he's not really a bad boy, just an unintentional problem student. What all three of these men have in common though, is their typical reaction to their problems with Archie. They get livid, their blood pressure shoots up, they shout a lot.

Jeff Shultz was also (at one time, I don't know if he's continuing) working on Boom Studios' PEANUTS comic book. Unfortunately, Jeff doesn't seem to have any sort of website.

I'd like to know what the Kennedy brothers and Bill Galvan are doing, as well. Also Craig Boldman and Rex Lindsay.

You can also add Fernando and Dan Parent to the list of people working on EERIE CUTIES. Both of those guys said they will have some announcements forthcoming in a little while, but right now it's too soon to say anything, when interviewed by Jonathan on this week's Riverdale Podcast.

Quote from: daren on April 17, 2016, 05:25:31 PM
When I posted my old trivia question on the old forum about which father and daughter have both worked for Archie I didn't know there was more than one case. I was thinking of course of Erica Henderson (reboot Jughead artist) and her father C.J. Henderson (writer of "For One Brief Moment" the story where Betty starts dating Reggie), but Fernando said that there's also Mindy and Hy Eisman. Now I think there might be ANOTHER one because I saw a woman with the last name "Doyle" credited as a writer on one of the eighties or nineties stories. Was that Frank Doyle's daughter?

Not sure about that one, but I think Kathleen Webb's husband (sorry, I'm blanking on his name at the moment) also wrote a bunch of stories for ACP. Or at least, someone with the last name Webb, possibly even a father or brother of Kathleen.

Quote from: MLJ 1939 on April 17, 2016, 06:02:54 PM

Quote from: DeCarlo Rules on April 17, 2016, 05:40:56 PM
Just the one story? Was he Hot Dog-like in any other way (thought balloons, lazy, glutton for food), or just in appearance?

As far as I can tell, he only appeared in one story. No other Hot Dog-like characteristics aside from his appearance.

He does look a lot like Hot Dog though, allowing for the 1940s style of drawing.

Quote from: daren on April 17, 2016, 05:17:29 PM
Hospital bills aren't cheap.

Well, I wish her luck. I'm sure she'll find something she's better suited for than Jughead, though.

Quote from: daren on April 17, 2016, 05:34:59 PM
I don't think the reboot will keep Archie in business but boycotting it wont make a difference either. If you don't like it I don't blame you for not buying it, I just do not see a moral issue about it.

I have a slight interest in the way Jughead's being written, but I have to balance that against having artwork that just really doesn't enhance the better qualities of the writing in any way (but at least I can see that Zdarsky is using classic Jughead stories as touchstones). I really do wish it was funnier, but the art isn't helping bring that out.


I keep hoping that the PTB will recognize that they're trashing almost everything (those Zdarsky touchstones excluded) that make Archie Comics unique, fun, and worthwhile, different and a breath of fresh air, instead of "OK, we give up. We'll do it the same way that the other publishers do to make it palatable for the comic shops." But I guess maybe not. It really doesn't matter if they fold in 6 months or 5 years, I guess. I just hope that they manage to get Gisele's Archie Meets Ramones out before the final collapse. Then it's all "Back issues, ahoy!" for me, at least until IDW or Dark Horse buys up the characters.

Just the one story? Was he Hot Dog-like in any other way (thought balloons, lazy, glutton for food), or just in appearance?

Quote from: daren on April 17, 2016, 05:14:07 PM

Yeah the reboot is just a novelty but it's entertaining for what it is and at this point if it fails it seems very unlikely ACP will interpret it as reason to bring back classic Archie, they'll just try another new thing like Disney style art. Fernando said in another post that they've told him they believe a classic Archie 32 won't sell. The best way to get those artists back with Archie or another company where they can do Archie style art is to support their independent projects. Like you do in other threads.

And yes, I'm following those creators whose work I enjoy into other similar ventures. The reboot may be entertaining to you. It isn't to me. I like (even, on specific occasions, love) some of the things that Mark Waid does; some other things he works on... 'eh, not so much'. The Archie reboot is definitely in the latter category. I like Adam Hughes art quite a bit, but that doesn't change my opinion that he's wasting his talent doing a Betty and Veronica comic (and that's not even having seen it yet). There are a dozen things I could think of for him to work on that would interest me more. If it's a question of "if this fails, then it's all over", then I'm still unmoved to purchase.

Quote from: daren on April 17, 2016, 04:51:49 PM
And Erica and her mother were stuck with a huge medical bill when old C.J. died (she's his only child) so if Fernando can't be doing Jughead I'm glad she is. (Yeah I can guilt with the best of them too.)

It was my understanding that she already has a job, and she basically had to make time to work Jughead into her schedule.

Quote from: daren on April 17, 2016, 04:14:16 PM

Quote from: DeCarlo Rules on April 15, 2016, 04:21:23 PM

Quote from: spazaru on April 15, 2016, 03:49:06 PM

Quote from: DeCarlo Rules on April 15, 2016, 01:25:00 PM
Yes, it's exciting enough to make you forget all about those people losing their jobs, isn't it?
^^^ (Potential sarcasm alert)^^^

I embarrassed to say I don't get it, and I was raised by the most sarcastic woman I've ever met.

Seriously? You see no connection between ACP spending the company's money to hire people like Adam Hughes, and former freelancers like Ruiz, Kennedy & Kennedy, Shultz, Galvan, etc. no longer having gainful employment at the company they've worked for, for 25 years? Yesterday's news then, and let's all just move on? Nevermind how they'll manage to pay their bills? That's life, no use crying over spilt milk, it's all water under the bridge? The important thing is that we keep buying everything ACP puts out, regardless?

ACP was wrong to fire Fernando and most of the rest because they were shouldn't have dropped the classic Archie style, not because they're obliged to keep them afloat.

And man you're guilting spazaru, a guy so principled he won't buy Archie books bound by exploited factory workers in Asia, for buying the reboot because boycotting it might very very slightly increase the chance of ACP rehiring their old artists, skilled abled Americans all? Even though the best one has said he doesn't want to work there anymore? I don't know, that seems a little backward. I lost my own job last month and it hasn't been easy, my new job is much crappier than my old one but thank God I have any job and live in a country with a huge safety net. I wish all the ex Archie employees luck especially Fernando but I'm sure they can take care of themselves and anything I say against their work being cut is only because I want to see more of it.

Well, if you're buying the reboot comics, basically the message you're sending back to ACP is that "Yes, you made the right decision. You are correct, this is the kind of Archie Comics stories I would like to see ACP publishing, going forward into the future." You know, as opposed to new stories from the other guys. So even though I'm condemning their business practices as far as how they repay years of service from the people that made the company what it is (in terms of creative output), I'm also condemning their aesthetic judgment concerning what type of stories are best for these characters that they own going forward as publishers. How else can I say this plainly? To me, the rebooted titles ARE JUST NOT ARCHIE. They are totally lacking in any of the unique qualities that make me want to read Archie Comics in the first place. In short, they are just like any other comics that any other publisher could (and would) put out. Except somewhat more boring, in terms of subject material.

Archie 1 reprints have been running in the back of WORLD OF ARCHIE since the beginning of the year (that's reprints of the prehistoric first Archie & friends, not reprints from ARCHIE #1), replacing the usual Little Archie section. SAGG prefers Archie in his own time period, rather than in the future or past. I prefer Archie in his own time period too, but to me, his 'time period' is "teenager" (which is why I have no interest in "Little" versions of any of the characters). So as long as Archie and the gang are teenagers, it doesn't matter to me whether their stories are in the historical (or prehistorical) past or the future - it makes a nice change from the usual present-day shenanigans once in a while. So far, here's what we've got:

WORLD OF ARCHIE (JUMBO) 55
Cave Man Casanova (6 pages)
Ruff and Ready (5 pages)

WORLD OF ARCHIE (ANNUAL) 56
The Beast (5 pages)
Handyman's Special (6 pages)

WORLD OF ARCHIE 57
Dino-Mite (5 pages)
Lullabye of Birdland (5 pages)
The Most Important Invention (1 page)

WORLD OF ARCHIE 58
Bag of Tricks (6 pages)
The Thing Maker (5 pages)

But actually, I only post this as a preface to a question that just occurred to me about the Archie 1 stories...

We've seen Archie 1, Jughead 1, Reggie 1, Betty 1, and Veronica 1. They all appear in most of the stories. In a few stories, I can even recall a Hiram 1, Weatherbee 1, and I think in at least one story I saw a Grundy 1, Flutesnoot 1, and Kleats 1, possibly even a Smithers 1. None of these are actually usually referred to in the stories by those names, by the way, not even Archie 1. Names of any of the characters are seldom if ever mentioned, except in quite a few stories there is "Big One" (who is actually Big Moose, but presumably mooses haven't evolved thus far, since dinosaurs, pterosaurs, mastodons and smilodons seem to be the predominant fauna observed - so no "Moose 1"). But this brings up the question -- has there ever been a Fred 1 or Mary 1, Hal 1, Alice 1, or Hermione 1? What about a Midge 1, Dilton 1, Chuck 1, Nancy 1 or Ethel 1? I wouldn't expect to see a Cheryl 1, since all of these stories predate her reappearance at the end of "Love Showdown" in the 1990s (but who knows, since some of those stories were concurrent with Cheryl's 1980s appearances).

Quote from: daren on April 17, 2016, 03:55:18 PM
There was a dog who looked like Hot Dog in one of the '40s stories, he was Archie's new dog.

I remember Archie having a dog in the 1940s stories, but I don't remember it being a big, shaggy white dog that looked like Hot Dog. Do you have an image of the dog you're thinking of?

Quote from: Mr.Lodge on April 17, 2016, 10:45:38 AM
Speaking of blow-up dolls, check this one out.

Harvey the Teenage Deviant

I've actually seen that one reprinted, and of course, Harvey's only using the inflatable girl to trick Sabrina. In the story with Dilton (from an issue of LAUGH from the 1980s) that the panel I showed above came from, he's lamenting about how he can't get a girlfriend because he's so short, and that's what he's talking about in that dialogue balloon "Even my plastic, inflatable girlfriend! Good grief! Even SHE!!" (... is taller than him.) The thing that's so notable here is Dilton's baldfaced admission that he has a plastic inflatable girlfriend... it's just presented matter-of-factly without comment, as if we shouldn't dwell on the implications of that.

Quote from: JonInIowaCity on April 17, 2016, 07:11:06 AM
You failed at creating a working link. Just an FYI...

yeah, I don't know how he got all those slashes and http: stuck in there. It's just plain ericafailsatlife.tumblr.com