|
Post by EdoBosnar on Oct 22, 2018 7:57:52 GMT -5
Yeah, I remember those Little Archie stories from reprints in the 1970s digests. Archie's personality was definitely different in them. As I recall, the prehistoric Archie stories were similar in that regard - in them, pretty much everyone in the gang was dumb, with one exception: Veronica. She was really sharp and self-aware (to the point that she seemed to realize they were living in prehistory) and always sardonically commented on the gang's antics.
|
|
|
Post by MDG on Oct 22, 2018 8:58:47 GMT -5
... As I recall, the prehistoric Archie stories were similar in that regard - in them, pretty much everyone in the gang was dumb, with one exception: Veronica. She was really sharp and self-aware (to the point that she seemed to realize they were living in prehistory) and always sardonically commented on the gang's antics. I read a stone-age Archie story in "Life with Archie" when I was young, but didn't realize that there was a series of them. Another issue had them in ancient Rome for no apparent reason (that is, no one got hit in the head during history class and dreamed it...)
|
|
|
Post by EdoBosnar on Oct 22, 2018 10:22:24 GMT -5
Yep, there was a number of Stone Age Archie stories - they were occasionally reprinted in the digests back in the 1970s, which is the only place I ever saw them. Never saw any Archies in ancient Rome, though - sounds pretty funny.
|
|
Crimebuster
CCF Podcast Guru
Making comics!
Posts: 3,946
|
Post by Crimebuster on Oct 22, 2018 13:37:50 GMT -5
The prehistoric series was called Archie 1, and popped up for many years, but particularly throughout the 1970's. For my money, those stories universally sucked. But hey, I guess someone must have liked them
There was a period in Life with Archie around #172-205 where they routinely had stories featuring the characters in different time periods and settings; some of these are good, some are lame. #192, for instance, has a cover story where the gang are 18th century pirates (or something). There's another where the story is a take on the Scarlet Pimpernel, and one where they are in a gothic horror/werewolf story. The Rome story may have been one of these.
This sort of thing eventually became a running schtick that appeared in other titles under the banner The Archie Arthouse Players, which often featured the gang as characters in classic literature, like Romeo and Juliet.
|
|
|
Post by MDG on Oct 22, 2018 13:54:22 GMT -5
The prehistoric series was called Archie 1, and popped up for many years, but particularly throughout the 1970's. For my money, those stories universally sucked. But hey, I guess someone must have liked them... The story I had was earlier, from '67, and didn't have the "Archie 1" title. It's teased on the cover. (I love the 60s books when they had a random vignette from inside the book over the title.)
|
|
|
Post by beccabear67 on Oct 22, 2018 14:55:41 GMT -5
I used to be obsessed with Little Archie comics, not even the Bob Bolling '50s ones usually, just run of the mill '70s... I'd forgotten how into those I was (along with Scamp comics), but I had a weird imagination and actually imagined Little Ambrose was a kid who'd died before reaching the teen age comics; it lent it some extra poignancy. I wonder if Gilbert Hernandez had the same idea as there was a weird coughing-laughing kid named Toco or something in his earliest Love & Rockets Palomar stories who dies, it reminded me of Ambrose. Toco never had his own comic title though...
|
|
|
Post by tarkintino on Oct 22, 2018 16:26:18 GMT -5
Right now, I'm having a hard time understanding Infantino because I just find these people highly objective and not telling me the whole story of which I do believe in that. Remember, Carmine Infantino was one of the movers and shakers of DC at that time, and more of a true insider than Bob Kane had been in decades (if ever, considering Infantino's role in helping to launch so many DC silver Age characters, etc.), and his accounts have been supported by too many names who worked at DC in the 1960s, including the fact that Batman as a character and comic had been saved and was growing in popularity before the TV series' debut or even went into production. That's just a matter of record.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 22, 2018 18:20:02 GMT -5
Right now, I'm having a hard time understanding Infantino because I just find these people highly objective and not telling me the whole story of which I do believe in that. Remember, Carmine Infantino was one of the movers and shakers of DC at that time, and more of a true insider than Bob Kane had been in decades (if ever, considering Infantino's role in helping to launch so many DC silver Age characters, etc.), and his accounts have been supported by too many names who worked at DC in the 1960s, including the fact that Batman as a character and comic had been saved and was growing in popularity before the TV series' debut or even went into production. That's just a matter of record. I know that he was an artist and and an editor -- but, I knew him first as an artist first. The part in blue that you've written that I'm having a hard time swallowing it because of Carmine's involvement. Remember, I don't get into debates of all the editors at DC Comics at all and who gets credit for because it is quite difficult for me to comprehend and all that. If that part in blue is true -- I'm really MAD at Bob Kane more than ever and that's why I felt that Bill Finger should be the one that created Batman in the first place. For the record alone. For the record, I know Carmine as an Artist first -- never, ever as an Editor and who is the Editor of anything is not important to me of who did the drawing (artist) and who did the writing for a particular book and/or character. For the record, I really consider all Editors are background players that makes the book better because they change things for the better and having said that -- I just don't think they are nearly important to me of who did the writing and the drawings. For the record, I admire Carmine Infantino as an artist first ... and editor last. I don't think editor is much as writing and drawing and drawing and writing -- and merely a background player making the book better and that's alone is important to all of us here -- but for me is not important as writing and drawing of any book that you can think of. For the record, I can't keep track of everyone in both DC and Marvel Comics and beyond of who did the editing and I was focusing on who did the writing and drawing and that's what my INTEREST held me the most back then and even TODAY .... I'm a man that can't keep track of everything that goes on in the world of COMICS and that alone is a daunting task for me. I like to keep things simple ... I need to get this off my chest and your post that you've shared hit me like a ton of bricks. Thanks Pal.
|
|
|
Post by codystarbuck on Oct 22, 2018 23:24:49 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by tarkintino on Oct 23, 2018 1:12:47 GMT -5
Classic 50s Little Archie was w-a-y different from the bumbling gal-crazy high-school version...seemed like a totally different Archie-Universe altogether.
But still adorable in its own way.
There, I said it.
Not too far from the truth, but I would say the standard teenage Archie of the 60s and 70s could be a schemer (usually against Reggie), and he was pretty sharp in Life with Archie, where the adventure themes sort of forced him out of the bumbler role
|
|
|
Post by Duragizer on Oct 23, 2018 1:25:16 GMT -5
I'm probably in an exceedingly small minority here, but I'm not too keen on black & white comics*. I need full-colour.
Which is why I never really fancied The Walking Dead series.
There, I said it.
*with the exception of Horror zines like Creepy, Eerie and Vampirella.
Maybe you haven't seen the right material... [...] Personal subjective opinion and all, but Bone looks better in colour.
|
|
|
Post by EdoBosnar on Oct 23, 2018 3:07:37 GMT -5
Yeah, I've seen/read most of the material codystarbuck posted, and I agree that much of it is quite lovely, but I still tend to prefer color over b&w. And even though I have the giant omnibus b&w edition of Bone (b/c I found it pretty cheap), I agree with Duragizer that Bone looks better in color.
|
|
|
Post by tarkintino on Oct 23, 2018 3:48:52 GMT -5
I'm probably in an exceedingly small minority here, but I'm not too keen on black & white comics*. I need full-colour. Which is why I never really fancied The Walking Dead series. There, I said it.
*with the exception of Horror zines like Creepy, Eerie and Vampirella.
Maybe you haven't seen the right material... Agreed. The Warren magazines had some of the most fantastic black and white work, such as-- i.imgur.com/2qihGMu.jpgWhile Marvel's Planet of the Apes magazine rarely failed to impress with-- ...or their superhero subjects-- ...or perhaps Charlton-- Excellent B&W work taking full advantage of the medium from some of the best talents in the format's history.
|
|
|
Post by Trevor on Oct 23, 2018 7:02:03 GMT -5
It’d be a very tough choice, but if forced to choose between having to give up my color or b&w books, I’d probably lose the color.
|
|
|
Post by kirby101 on Oct 23, 2018 8:46:18 GMT -5
Barry Smith's B&W work for Red Nails was spectacular. And the Buscema/Alcala Savage Sword art was great.
|
|