Keskustelujen arkisto

I'm gonna step up and defend Archie, as a company and as a series. They've taken some big risks in the last few years that have really paid off and have become a really exciting publisher.

Quote from user: AngilasmanI'm gonna step up and defend Archie, as a company and as a series. They've taken some big risks in the last few years that have really paid off and have become a really exciting publisher.
As was pointed out above, the main Archie universe has, in recent years, fallen prey to the epidemic of unbridled political correctness and the compulsion to ensure that nobody anywhere, at any time, should feel even the slightest bit offended by anything, much to the detriment of the humor and sharpness of the stories and art. Thus, Big Moose can no longer be a violent, dimwitted bully, Big Ethel can no longer be a pathetic, unattractive, man-hungry Jughead-chaser, Veronica can no longer be a scheming unscrupulous heiress, Chuck can't be a good athlete anymore because it would be too stereotypical, several token minority characters with no defining personalities beyond their ethnicities are introduced in quick succession, and when they create a gay character, he immediately gets his own title, becomes a major character who can do no wrong and is prominently featured on merchandise and advertising, displacing several others who have been around for decades. In addition, the art in today's Archie comics is vastly inferior to the work of veterans like DeCarlo, Schwartz and Bolling, and they've toned down the borderline-risque, "good girl art" component. I'm not sure how the Archie reboot will change these equations, but I'm predicting they won't last very long.

On the other hand, the Life with Archie series that depicted them as grown-ups at least started off interesting (although its conclusion was overly simplistic and appeared to be driven by something of a political agenda), and the zombie storyline is bold, to say the least. Still, it surprises me that Archie has lasted as long as it has. Does anyone know how financially stable the company is? Usually, such dramatic changes are indicative of stagnation and declining sales, and suggest a desperate, struggling company on the verge of collapse. There have been takeover rumors, but I'm not sure how credible they are. Also, why on earth are Dark Horse and IDW producing the Archie archival books, arther than Archie themselves?

Quote from user: Angilasman^ Different perspectives: I think having gay characters, and characters of different ethnicities is extremely important, especially in media aimed at young people. A couple of years ago I made the statement: 'since when did Archie become the most socially relevant mainstream comics company?' The other companies are doing a bit better now, but they certainly were ahead of the game for a minute, there.
Oh, don't get me wrong, I don't mean to imply in the slightest that having gay characters or characters of multiple ethnicities is a bad thing in itself, it's just that with the examples I cited with respect to Archie, it all seemed a little forced. It would have been somewhat better if they has spent a little time developing the personalities of the characters and given them a little time to get absorbed into the mainstream Archie universe rather than make it feel like they were being forced into it simply for tokenism. I'll admit that I haven't read very many mainstream Archie books recently, so perhaps I'm underinformed about how these characters are being used. However, having had quite a collection of Archie books from the 80s and 90s, the obvious toning down of the original cast's distinctive and eccentric traits (Moose's thickheadedness, Ethel's unattractiveness, etc.) is very obvious and seems to have been done for political correctness. It robs the characters of some of their charm, IMHO. I think you're right, the Archie comics of today are skewed to a much younger audience than the Archie comics from the 70s through the 90s. That probably explains the change. On the other hand, Disney comics modeled on the Duck comics of Barks, Rosa, Scarpa, etc. while still appealing to kids, seem to have retained their all-ages appeal through the years.

Quote from user: AngilasmanI'm gonna step up and defend Archie, as a company and as a series. They've taken some big risks in the last few years that have really paid off and have become a really exciting publisher.
Not to get too off-topic, but since we discussed Archie Comics briefly on this thread, I wanted to point out for those who may have missed it that the company recently disastrously started a public-funded kickstarter to launch three new titles which fell woefully short of their expectations and earned them the ire of long-time fans and the opprobrium of the comics industry in general for being a company with a 75-year history resorting to means designed for small startups, prompting them to hastily put the kibosh on the whole thing and then essentially blame those who criticized their decision for the failure of this ill-advised venture. They followed this up with an assurance that the new comics would be coming out anyway (for what that's worth), so if we take them at their word, they didn't really need the money in the first place. I'm honestly not sure what this says about the financial health of the company, but they certainly didn't come out smelling of roses over the whole fiasco.

As an aside, I seem to recall that Archie had some kind of deal to distribute certain early Gladstone Series I comics in the late 80s ... I remember seeing ads for Uncle Scrooge Goes to Disney Land in some Archie digests around then. Does anyone have any details about this?

I don't have any behind the scenes details, but I do know that Archie Comics distributed Digest versions of Gladstone's reprints of Disneyland Birthday Party and Uncle Scrooge Goes to Disneyland. As far as I know, those were the only Disney Digests distributed by Archie Comics. Gladstone distributed their own Digests for Walt Disney's Comics, Uncle Scrooge, Donald Duck and Mickey Mouse for a short time, but these didn't take off. In one of Gladstone's letter columns, it was said that the digests were discontinued because older readers had a hard time reading the smaller sized comics. At least Archie has the advantage of usually going with the three-tier panel layout over Disney's four-tier layout, so that the artwork doesn't shrink as much.

Quote from user: DebbieI don't have any behind the scenes details, but I do know that Archie Comics distributed Digest versions of Gladstone's reprints of Disneyland Birthday Party and Uncle Scrooge Goes to Disneyland. As far as I know, those were the only Disney Digests distributed by Archie Comics.
Why only these two digests, though? Were they trying out a partnership that didn't work out? Was there ever a consideration for Archie to distribute all of Gladstone's comics? If that had happened, I wonder if Gladstone's circulation numbers would have been any better?

Quote from user: DebbieIn one of Gladstone's letter columns, it was said that the digests were discontinued because older readers had a hard time reading the smaller sized comics.
I would've found that amusing a few years ago. Now, not so much ...

I'm not sure it's just the three tier vs four-tier issue ... I wonder if the fact that Archie digests are still going strong while similarly sized Disney digests faded away is just more proof of how Archie comics and Disney comics cater to different demographics. Archie's readers are probably kids with with good eyes, and most Disney comics readers are older adults.