Quote from: spazaru on April 17, 2016, 07:37:56 AM
I'm not a big fan of Erica's work on Jughead, but I couldn't do any better and I certainly don't have a career half as cool as she does.  I WISH I had a talent I enjoyed that others were willing to pay for.

Well, somebody must like her artwork, and more importantly, some of those somebodies are comic book editors, so... 
It's kind of hard for me to see it personally, because I know there's so much competition in the comic art field, and I'm seeing tons of talented folks just posting their artwork online on DeviantArt.com or elsewhere, or setting up tables in artists' alleys in conventions, yet those people still don't have work that's been professionally published, even though they seem to have gobs of talent. So I guess it's a combination of factors besides just raw talent. (Plus, her dad is C.J. Henderson, a published writer who basically worked his way up through the semi-professional levels of publishing, and he probably taught her a few tricks about hooking up with publishers.)

But beauty's in the eye of the beholder, as they say. Who can explain Betty Cooper's being smitten with Archie, anyway? 

Quote from: invisifan on April 17, 2016, 08:20:45 AM
So her parents actually named her cricket? It's not just a nickname? .,. There's something fishy about this ...

Who knows? Could be a nickname, or even her given name (parents have been known to name their kids weird names). It's not like we've ever seen her parents, or even that much of her. How many appearances did Jughead make before it was suddenly discovered that his real name is Forsythe? Or take, f'rinstance, James Buchanan "Bucky" Barnes. For decades, no one had a clue that Bucky (or Buck or something) wasn't his actual given name. Few people probably even thought to question whether it was or not.

Quote from: Mr.Lodge on April 17, 2016, 01:52:20 AM

Quote from: Fernando Ruiz on April 17, 2016, 12:10:06 AM
Look! I can draw Nu Jughead too!

Don't dumb yourself down, Fernando - You're much better than that! Plus you actually have real talent. 

Erica must have taken an abstract art class to learn how to chicken scratch. 

That kind of scribbly artwork is perfectly acceptable for some offbeat, alternative type creator-owned independent comics. Heck, you can even look at some of the long-running  newspaper comics like CATHY or DILBERT -- they're no great shakes in the artwork department, but they've been carried along for years on the strength of the basic concept and the writing.

On the other hand, sometimes working for the mainstream means you've got to temper yourself and dial it down a notch or two. Seeing Fernando's art on DIE KITTY DIE is a real eye-opener in that respect, the best work I've ever seen from him. It makes it seem like the editors at Archie Comics were holding him back from what he's really capable of. Or maybe he just put extra loving care and attention into it because Kitty is something he can call his own.

Quote from: Mr.Lodge on April 17, 2016, 02:09:37 AM


//http://ericafailsatlife.tumblr.com/

So what does that leave then, when you fail at... ? Nah. Too easy.

Yeah, that's a great site. Thanks for the list of links. There are a few of those I missed.

Diminutive Dilton's Degenerate Deviancies
I can't believe he missed some of the best examples in that Dilton post. Like this one:

O'Dell is her last name, and it's one word (it's an Irish thing) - so technically, her initials are just C.O., unless she's got some undisclosed middle name.

Friday 4/15
JUGHEAD AND ARCHIE COMICS DIGEST #2

Saturday 04/16
ARCHIE DOUBLE DIGEST #267 (arrived that same day, along with Jughead and Archie Spring Annual #20)
WORLD OF ARCHIE DOUBLE DIGEST #58 (arrived 04/14)

... and that catches me up on the current digests, at least until Archie Comics Annual #268 or Betty and Veronica Double Digest #243, whichever comes out first. Until I get those in the mail, I'll be catching up on older Jughead and Archie, and Jughead & Friends digests.

Sabrina. She's sweet (like Betty Cooper), and is well-intentioned but has a tendency for her plans to go wrong and get out of hand (like Archie). Since she's got the power of witchcraft at her disposal, sometimes she can't resist the temptation to use it for a little mischief or payback (like Veronica or Reggie), but overall she's nice and kind. Archie's got his dad, Fred Andrews, and Mr. Weatherbee as the authority figures in his life to cause him worry, and Sabrina's got her Aunt Hilda (the original one could be pretty crotchety sometimes) and Head Witch Della looking over her shoulder and criticizing.

Quote from: irishmoxie on April 16, 2016, 11:19:02 AM

Quote from: Fernando Ruiz on April 16, 2016, 08:29:06 AM

There was already a sense of foreboding because even then the company was trimming the fat. Books like Archie's Christmas Stocking, Archie's Spring Break Special and Betty & Veronica Spectacular were getting peeled away and we were getting worried. Brother, we had NO idea back then!

These are some of my favs. I wish they'd bring these back.

These were all 48-page Giants from the 1990s, but were mainly made up of reprint material, usually with a new lead story (and here I think Fernando actually meant to say "Betty & Veronica Summer Fun", since unlike the other two, B&V Spectacular was a regular-size ongoing title from 1992-2009 that lasted 90 issues, a decent run). Included in that same category were Josie and the Pussycats (2 issues), Reggie's Revenge (3 issues), Jughead's Baby Tales (2 issues), and Cheryl Blossom Special (4 issues). Archie's Spring Break Special lasted 5 issues (1996-2000); Archie's Christmas Stocking lasted 7 issues (1993-1999), and Betty & Veronica Summer Fun also lasted 7 (1994-2000). In a way, these were sort of a replacement for the ARCHIE GIANT SERIES which ended in 1987 (although by that time, it had ceased being an actual Giant in page count by a decade or more), and had traditionally featured those seasonal annuals like Christmas Stocking and Summer Fun. There were other occasional one-shot giants that could be considered part of this group, like Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles Meet Archie, but B&V Summer Fun #7 (2000) was the last of these.

Barring those occasional special projects like Archie vs Predator, Archie vs Sharknado, and (hopefully sometime before the year ends) Archie Meets Ramones, it seems pretty clear that ACP is done with classic Archie in the floppy comics format. That format will be devoted to the New Riverdale and Archie Horror titles going forward, or at least that's clearly the intent on ACP's part, unless people let them know otherwise by their purchasing decisions.

To summarize:

1) "Classic Archie" in the form of reprints (in digests and/or digitally) will always be around in some form. The company owns them, they are already paid for.

2) Regarding NEW stories which cost the company money to produce, you are being asked to choose, whether you admit to this or not, between the New Riverdale/Archie Horror and Classic Archie. The latter has been reduced to, currently, 240 pages per year (or 20 per month, on average) exclusively by Dan Parent, and appearing in the 6 Archie digest titles. I can't really estimate the combined pages of the former, but assuming at least one of those titles appears per month, then it's 22 pages, so they're already producing more new "non-Classic Archie" stories than they are new Classic Archie stories. When the Archie Horror titles eventually return, then it will be more than 22 pages per month, on average, with the addition of the rebooted B&V title, as well.

3) If you want MORE new "non-Classic Archie" stories, then continue to buy those titles. Now, the unfortunate thing here is that since Dan Parent's Classic Archie stories are appearing exclusive in the mainly-reprint digests, there's really no way for ACP to know how many copies of the digest sales are attributable to Dan's new Classic Archie stories. But you can bet that increased sales on the "non-Classic Archie" titles isn't going to result in ACP commissioning more work from Dan Parent or any of the other former Classic Archie freelancers. If the New Riverdale/Archie Horror titles are NOT successful, then new Classic Archie stories by Dan Parent or the other former freelancers may be the only option left. Or no new Archie stories, whatsoever, only reprints. You can only be sure that continued sales of non-Classic Archie will lead to more new non-Classic Archie stories. Whichever you choose; you won't get both, however.

Quote from: spazaru on April 15, 2016, 05:07:32 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?

didn't say all that DCR; I genuinely didn't get what you were saying; thanks for explaining

Of course I'm not happy with classic Archie being phased out.  However I do like the new stuff as well.  Believe me, I've been very vocal to Archie that I want more classic stuff from the artists I love.  Obviously they aren't listening.  I've tried. 

I don't buy everything ACP puts out.  I do buy some new Riverdale stuff and a lot of digests. 

Sorry I didn't get what you meant.  I don't think anyone loves Fernando, the Kennedys, Shultz, Galvan, Dan Parent, Gisele, etc any more than I do. 

I'm not going to hate on the reboots if I enjoy them.  I think they're well done.  Just my opinion.  I'd love to see classic Archie right along side them, trust me.

This has nothing to do with hating on Mark Waid, Fiona Staples, Chip Zdarksy, Erica Henderson, or Adam Hughes. They aren't culpable of anything here. I've enjoyed the work of Waid, Zdarsky, and Hughes on other comics, and will continue to do so. ACP is hiring them to do a job to the best of their ability, the same as they would do with any of a half-dozen other comic book companies that have hired them to do work in the past, and will most likely continue to do in the future. It's a shame that it comes down to an either/or proposition, but make no mistake, that's exactly what it is. It's the Powers-That-Be at ACP who are the bad guys here. ACP has chosen to devote its limited fiscal resources to hiring the reboot creators, and in order to do so, it's necessary for them to reduce the work available to those ACP freelance alumni who have devoted 25+ years to writing and drawing for the company to zero (Dan Parent being the sole exception to the ax). Fernando Ruiz' devoting 25 years of his career as a creator at the company meant less than nothing to those in charge, and they could not even be bothered to level with him, face-to-face, about the situation as it exists. That's what makes any financial vote FOR the reboot a vote, by default, AGAINST new stories by classic Archie creators. If the reboot is turning out to be successful, then that is where the PTB at ACP are going to continue to throw their limited resources, NOT at the creation of new classic Archie stories by veteran creators.

The thing you need to realize is that all of the ACP alumni creators are specialists who have spent decades honing their talents in one particular vein of cartooning. Most of them have devoted nearly the entirety of their careers to working ONLY for ACP, not the half-dozen different outfits that those big-name reboot creators have. If they are to start submitting samples at other companies trying to get work, it's as if they're starting their careers all over again at the bottom rung of the ladder, since Archie & Friends is the only pro work that they're known for. About the best that can be said is that due to the number of pages they've worked on professionally, an editor for another company can probably rest easy in the knowledge that they can deliver the work on time. But there's a large question of style. If there's a new Batman or Spider-Man spinoff title starting up, how is Fernando Ruiz' previous resume helping him get that job? And believe me, Fernando is probably in a better position, regarding the versatility of his style, than guys like Jeff Shultz or Bill Galvan (and that's no insult to them either, it's just that they're both very good at a particular kind of style that doesn't happen to be in high demand at other publishers). So tell me who suffers most if they don't get the work from ACP, the Mark Waids and Adam Hugheses, or the guys known nearly exclusively for their work on ACP's characters?

Quote from: SAGG on April 15, 2016, 04:44:20 PM
I like your post because I respect your principles, DR. I'll give the new ones a shot for awhile because of the curiosity factor. I DO find it interesting that you'd get a least a copy of the new B & V, and not either of the new Archie or Jughead titles. Is that an influence out of your love for DeCarlo's work, since he was the main B & V artist?

I think you misunderstood what I was saying, SAGG. I will not support any of the reboot titles in the financial sense by purchasing them. I expect I will borrow a copy of the rebooted B&V (which cover variant is irrelevant) only for the purpose of satisfying my curiosity, the same as I did with the rebooted ARCHIE and JUGHEAD, which I also borrowed to read. If I can't borrow it, I won't buy it. Buying any of them would be like voting with my wallet that ACP should continue making comics in that vein, and any dollar spent on the reboot is a vote against ACP spending the company's money to give work to the classic Archie artists instead.

It's futile to support the concept of an Archie reboot in principle, regardless of how it relates to the classic Archie artists getting work with the company, and here's why: the reboot is entirely dependent for its success on courting the comic shop audience - an audience that is notoriously fickle, and furthermore an audience that has demonstrated NO love for the Archie characters in the past. Any temporary sales that ACP can manage to glean from that audience are based strictly on the novelty of the concept of putting "big name creators" to work on the Archie characters, and ACP can't possibly keep the novelty fresh enough for that audience to stick with the company's product. Look at how DC Comics alienated its faithful longtime readers with a reboot of its universe in 2011. Five years later, that company is in worse shape than it was prior to the reboot, and it's time for yet another "DC Rebirth". Now they're looking to REincorporate some of the very things they trashed as worthless in the 2011 reboot, but now it's five years later, and most of the hardcore DC addicts that they lost have moved on to other things. Novelty value doesn't last, and when the "NEW" wears off, the audience dissipates like smoke.

Quote from: 60sBettyandReggie on April 15, 2016, 08:35:20 PM
There were a couple of stories where they used another name. It wasn't The POW Trio but I can't remember the name.

I remember the one where it's a takeoff on Beatlemania. The guys (including Big Moose) all don longhair wigs, begin touring and become a smash hit phenomenon, but decide to chuck their music career when it becomes clear that they'll never again have any kind of privacy or personal life. I forget what they called themselves, maybe "The Termites" or something similar. That story is in one of the BEST OF ARCHIE COMICS collections.

Quote from: BettyReggie on April 15, 2016, 06:44:36 PM
it's strange to see Veronica with a shorter do. Her hair has never been that short.

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?