|
|
Post by tarkintino on Sept 27, 2019 2:34:44 GMT -5
I personally find this era to be the book's worst, and for me it's not close. All the parody stuff beginning around #42 or so just doesn't work for me, I just don't find it funny. The Pureheart superhero spoofs from this era are better than Man from RIVERDALE - or the Archies stuff that comes along a little later spoofing The Monkees - but none of it is great. Interestingly enough, the nucleus of the Archies made their debut in Archie's Pal, Jughead #49, from August of 19 58--the original rock music explosion era. Yes, the mid 60s Archies stories did ape the Beatles/Monkees vibe, but it not would be too long before the group stories were more about their trying to become successful, occasionally competing against rival groups, Josie and the Pussycats crossovers, etc., sans the kind of fourth-wall breaking, dark humor plots common to The Monkees sitcom. You'll find more of the kind of stories later watered down for the Filmation cartoons in LWA, Archie, and the then-forthcoming Everything's Archie and Archie's T.V. Laugh-Out. About parodies: they were expected, particularly in the 1960s where it was financially advisable to jump on the cultural movers & shakers, but I'm in agreement that most parodies (from Archie Comics) were lowballing affairs, as the Archie writers were not of that kind of MAD magazine ability to zero in on the essence of entertainment or trend, and completely reimagine it as their own. While the Archies' humor did not break the 4th wall in the same manner of The Monkees, they did it in one, special way: I cannot recall the title where the story was originally published, but there's a one-off (illustrated by the great Harry Lucey) where the Archies meet (I believe) Bob Montana and music producer Don Kirshner, while talking about the Archies' records, and merchandising. Essentially an in-house celebration of their success, the story was also reprinted in The Best of Archie TPB (Perigee Books, 1980). Sort of surreal, but a great marker of the impact Archie as a character (and the band concept) had in the late 60s/early 70s on comics and pop culture. |
|
shaxper
CCF Site Custodian
Posts: 22,864
|
Post by shaxper on Sept 29, 2019 8:34:52 GMT -5
#76 and #78 are still feeling like more traditional Archie fare, but each had at least one truly good story in the mix. The Archies are present for a brief moment at the front of #76, and #8 has one story devoted to them. Otherwise, it's a generic Archie title, as you suggested, Scott.
|
|
shaxper
CCF Site Custodian
Posts: 22,864
|
Post by shaxper on Sept 29, 2019 9:17:33 GMT -5
Ugh. Just snuck in #79, and what a difference! Stilted, Formulaic hack writing from cover to cover. Possibly the worst Archie comic I've ever read outside of Archie's Joke Book.
|
|
Crimebuster
CCF Podcast Guru
Making comics!
Posts: 3,958 
|
Post by Crimebuster on Sept 29, 2019 12:50:58 GMT -5
Ugh. Just snuck in #79, and what a difference! Stilted, Formulaic hack writing from cover to cover. Possibly the worst Archie comic I've ever read outside of Archie's Joke Book. It's interesting, because GCD lists most of the stories in that issue as being written by Frank Doyle, who was usually very good. On the other hand, according to wikipedia, he wrote over 10,000 Archie stories during his career, so they can't all be good. This issue came out right as the cartoon was hitting the air. Archie soon became massively popular, and expanded their line quite a bit during this period. I think there's a definite downturn in quality across the line as a result - new creators had to be brought in that just weren't as good as legends like DeCarlo, Schwartz, Lucey, Bolling, etc. |
|
|
|
Post by profh0011 on Sept 29, 2019 15:58:26 GMT -5
Somewhere I have a few random Archie books that I think my Mom must have bought in the 70s sometime. I recall one day thumbing thru them and being terribly disappointed that they all seemed to be made up of one-page "joke" stories. Seriously, if I want that, I'd rather read Harvey's "SAD SACK" comics.
As it happens, I have exactly ONE issue of "LIFE WITH ARCHIE"... which I bought new, at a comics convention in NYC, from Gene Colan!!! It was the last time I crossed paths with him, and he was sitting at the same table as Dan DeCarlo, who I am embarrassed to admit, whenever I think back on the incident, I had NO idea who he was at the time.
I'd met Gene a couple times before; he's the one who encouraged me to try inking with a BRUSH, years before I went to art school. I joked that people might think he was working for ARCHIE Comics, and his wife Adrienne chimed in, "HE IS!" --holding up a copy of the latest issue. Well, of course, I HAD to get it!
Gene Colan doing ARCHIE was sort of like when Stan Drake took over BLONDIE in the newspapers. Except Drake was so adept at drawing anything in the world with absolute accuracy, so you COULDN'T tell it was him doing it-- except, when he'd deliberately throw in high-angle shots of the neighborhood in the Sunday strips, just as a way of saying to his fans, "Yep, it's ME!" With Gene it was more blatent. YOU COULD TELL it was him-- and yet, he WAS drawing it in the patented "ARCHIE" style-- more or less. (Otherwise, I doubt they'd have hired him. They were VERY strict about that sort of thing.)
It's a shame I buy so painfully few comics these days (and the last 4 years, mostly to support a singular blog project I'm working on), because whenever I see ads for current ARCHIE books, they always seem more interesting now than they ever used to. Pretty amazing for a franchise that's been around since the 1940s.
The only downside I tend to connect with ARCHIE comics-- which has nothing to do with their current output-- is the absolutely SHAMEFUL and DISGRACEFUL way they treated Dan DeCarlo near the end of his life. In their own way, Archie is every bit as "corporate" and cut-throat as "the big two".
ONLY in this country................
|
|
|
|
Post by tarkintino on Sept 29, 2019 16:18:45 GMT -5
It's a shame I buy so painfully few comics these days (and the last 4 years, mostly to support a singular blog project I'm working on), because whenever I see ads for current ARCHIE books, they always seem more interesting now than they ever used to. I'm not so certain about that. Most would consider the origin period of the 1940s, then the Archie "boom" of the late 60s-early 70s to be the heydays of the company. Oh, you are not kidding. I've heard some pretty bleak stories about former Archie artists and writers while they worked at the company and in the retirement years. I believe the only reason the general public--or comic readers--know so little about it is that Archie did not have the "scandal" magnifying glass on it in the way DC & Marvel did, so Archie's problems were allowed to be put in a corner and ignored. |
|
shaxper
CCF Site Custodian
Posts: 22,864
|
Post by shaxper on Sept 29, 2019 21:51:27 GMT -5
Life with Archie #80 returns to the idea of devoting an entire issue to one central idea. In this case, Riverdale has a new teen, Angel Angelino, who is the son of Mr. Lodge's gardener. Any attempt to get us to warm up to this new character is thwarted by the tremendous amount of inconsistency running across this issue. In the first story, Angel is a small but clever schemer looking to make a name for himself, but by the second story, he's a foot taller and an all-out bully. And neither depiction matches the character we see on the cover. Apparently, Angel comes back again after this story, but I have no handle on who the character is nor what I'm supposed to like about him at this point.
Life with Archie #84 is another series of generic stories, none of which are particularly bad, but none of which land particularly well either. Just a pretty forgettable installment.
|
|
|
|
Post by profh0011 on Sept 29, 2019 21:55:21 GMT -5
I'm not so certain about that. Most would consider the origin period of the 1940s, then the Archie "boom" of the late 60s-early 70s to be the heydays of the company. I've heard some pretty bleak stories about former Archie artists and writers while they worked at the company and in the retirement years. I believe the only reason the general public--or comic readers--know so little about it is that Archie did not have the "scandal" magnifying glass on it in the way DC & Marvel did, so Archie's problems were allowed to be put in a corner and ignored. I've seen some art from the 40s, and it's a bit of a shock to see how different it was back then. Apparently,when Dan DeCarlo came along, he became so popular, everyone else was told to draw like him (including Stan Goldberg, Al Hartley, etc.).
I've also seen the earliest episodes of THE SHIELD, illustrated by Irv Novick-- who back then, was in full-blown "JOE SHUSTER" mode. I'd never have guessed he was the same guy who did so many BATMAN stories in the 70s, in "Neal Adams" style. (My favorite work of his a few years ago became his installments of "Stories From The Bible" in BOY'S LIFE magazine, from 1956-1964.)
Anyway... without reading any of them, the promotion and ads I've run across in the last several years just seem like someone at the company is really trying to stretch their boundaries, to grab a new audience, or something. They've got me more curious about their stuff than ANYTHING going on at Marvel or DC has in over 15 years.
The big scandal I heard was that they decided to do a SABRINA THE TEENAGE WITCH live-action tv series (the one that became so successful with Melissa Joan Hart, who I just fell in love with)... WITHOUT ever telling DeCarlo, who had CREATED the character!!! He tried to sue them over it, and was FIRED on the spot. And, as it turns out, he was also the CREATOR of JOSIE AND THE PUSSYCATS. I mean, I had NO IDEA!!! I really loved the live-action movie, and thought they missed a sure bet not having them make a guest-appearance on the SABRINA tv series. (I mean... Britney Spears did!)
I recently saw (thanks to my best friend sending me some custom DVDs) the pilot for "RIVERDALE", and enjoyed it far more than all the negative feedback I'd been hearing would have made me believe possible. (I saw the cameo by the Pussycats in there... but MAN, that version of them, they were so thoroughly unlikable!)
|
|
Crimebuster
CCF Podcast Guru
Making comics!
Posts: 3,958
|
Post by Crimebuster on Sept 29, 2019 22:05:41 GMT -5
Archie as a company has had a lot of very questionable stuff around their treatment of creators working for them. A big issue is that they constantly reprint old stories in the digests, but my understanding is that historically they didn't provide royalties to the creators for these reprints. I know that has led to a lot of hard feelings and even lawsuits.
Having said that, a lot of the issues came before current president Jonathan Goldwater took over. I don't know if things have improved, but I know he has done a lot of other innovations, so hopefully taking care of his creators is among them.
|
|
|
|
Post by Prince Hal on Sept 30, 2019 8:44:49 GMT -5
Great thread, especially for someone like me, who has never been a regular reader of Archie. (Nearly every issue I ever read would have been in the barbershop back in the early 60s.)
However, even from afar, I find the appeal obvious; for me the Archie "Universe" had overtones of Andy Hardy movies, the Hardy Boys mysteries, and a score of similar movies and TV series set in small towns full of familiar, comforting characters. If anything, I wanted that to be the focus of the comics rather than the succession of one- and two-page gags that seemed repetitive and dull even to an eight-year-old kid.
One goal of mine, however, is to read the Little Archie collections, which I've heard so much about.
Now, a stupid question. Is Reggie mantle's name meant to be a pun on "regimental?" Or is there some other meaning to his name?
|
|
|
|
Post by profh0011 on Sept 30, 2019 17:39:40 GMT -5
When the Filmation " ARCHIE" cartoon show first debuted, it was on directly opposite the Grantray-Lawrence " SPIDER-MAN" cartoons, which I still rank among the absolute best adventure cartoons EVER made for Saturday mornings. I watched those from the very 1st week... then, when reruns started, I switched over and watched " ARCHIE". Until I'd seen all of those... then, I switched back to " SPIDER-MAN". It's funny when I think about it, but they were both about "teenagers" and their adventures. One had bubblegum rock & roll music songs, the other had some of the coolest instrumental jazz for background music ever heard. Each year, " ARCHIE" would change its format somewhat. The 2nd season of " SPIDER-MAN" saw the show ABRUPTLY switch studios after the 1st week, when GL went BANKRUPT, and the distributor hired Ralph Bakshi to set up a new studio and knock out the 2nd season for almost NO money. The writing was 2nd-rate, the animation was almost non-existent, and the music was.... WEIRD. Turns out, all the new stuff was "production music" / "library tracks" from the KPM, Capitol and DeWolf libraries. It grew on me. In the long run... on BOTH shows, the music wound up being, BY A WIDE MARGIN, the best thing about them. I still watch " SPIDER-MAN". Even the later Krantz Films episodes. But when I saw reruns of " ARCHIE" some years ago, my impression was... " Gee, I don't remember it being THIS bad!!!"  "YOU MAKE ME WANNA DANCE""LOVE LIGHT""THE HELL RAISERS" -- Syd Dale"POWER DRIVE" -- Johnny Pearson |
|
shaxper
CCF Site Custodian
Posts: 22,864
|
Post by shaxper on Sept 30, 2019 21:12:56 GMT -5
#90 and #92 were more forgettable generic Archie stories. Not particularly bad, not particularly good. The Archies are becoming a more prominent presence in the book, but they didn't get the cover of #92.
#100 seems to exist as part of a short-lived new direction for the book that lasted between #99 and #104 in which the title is devoted entirely to racing. The Archies are still around, but the book takes excessive efforts to throw technical racing jargon at us as if we know what it all means and will think the book is extra cool for also being in the know. Glad this fad didn't last all that long, although I have two more issues from this stretch to get through before finally getting to what Scott considers the truly good stuff.
|
|
|
|
Post by tarkintino on Sept 30, 2019 23:30:42 GMT -5
I've seen some art from the 40s, and it's a bit of a shock to see how different it was back then. Different--but in line with comedy or light romance comics of the period. I would say Al Hartley's early 70s work was very different--there's a heavy-lined, "richer" energy about his work that I did not see in DeCarolo's. Then, you had very unique artists like Samm Schwartz and Harry Lucey--very much their own style and to me, made their mark as two of the defining Archie artists. Who could imagine a Jughead comic handled better than Schwartz? Yeah, companies often set the tone for the artist; Ross Andru's pre-Marvel work was a very different animal than what the world would come to know as his best remembered style on The Amazing Spider-Man. Same with Novick once he landed at DC (although he was a regular Batman artist before Adams, and matured the look of the characters that Adams, and later Aparo would run with to great success). Creators fired or mistreated is--sadly--one of the legacies of the comic publishing industry. |
|
shaxper
CCF Site Custodian
Posts: 22,864
|
Post by shaxper on Oct 9, 2019 17:52:23 GMT -5
Finally getting around to your favorite stretch, Scott:
Life with Archie #112: The big story you've mentioned in this thread in which Betty is beaten by muggers and Archie considers vigilantism as a way of coping with his own guilt for never treating Betty right. But I liked the lead story a little better, in which a selfish, whining Archie takes a trip with Chuck into Riverdale's ghetto, where he meets Chuck's blind cousin and gains a little perspective.
Life with Archie #119: Archie tries to move out on his own, and the reality of how hard life outside of mom and dad's home is hits him upside the head. The most shocking moment comes when Ronnie has to explain that she and Betty will no longer be coming to visit because "Good Girls" don't go to such places without parental supervision. The B story had tremendous potential but was rushed, as Archie struggles with the many complicated facets of the Vietnam War and the question of whether to protest or enlist. That the girls praise him for his willingness to embrace both sides of the debate is surprising and disturbingly relevant today, especially as Reggie loudly proclaims that whatever side he chooses is right, and whoever is against him is always wrong. Serious parallels to now.
In general, I really really respect the book's efforts to get relevant in a meaningful, substantial way, often skirting the edges of what is fitting/appropriate for an Archie book, but the storytelling isn't quite working yet. I respect these stories, but I'm not really enjoying them. I guess I can see now why the Archie Married Life series took on the mantle of Life with Archie. It took this yearning to be socially relevant in a meaningful way to a whole new level. Still, I have high hopes for the remaining books I own in this stretch.
|
|
shaxper
CCF Site Custodian
Posts: 22,864
|
Post by shaxper on Oct 9, 2019 19:31:54 GMT -5
LwA #120: FINALLY a story I love. The love triangle has yet another classic misunderstanding where Betty believes Archie has ditched her for Veronica. But, unlike the traditional stories where hijinks would ensue, Betty takes it very seriously and her self-esteem unravels quickly. Though the story avoids going quite far enough to spell it out, it's obvious Betty becomes emotionally unstable and potentially a danger to herself. Her parents are distraught, and her father heads over to Archie's house to give him a beating. The misunderstanding is quickly rectified, and the story becomes a charming quest on behalf of Archie, his dad, and Betty's parents, to make her feel special again. It's adorable, and so thoroughly real to the character. Plus, it's one of the few times Archie clearly and decisively chooses Betty over Veronica, and I've always been Team Betty.
|
|
