New, “more realistic” look coming for Archie Comics
posted at 6:12 pm on December 18, 2006 by Allahpundit
Is nothing sacred? Can we not hold on to the few remaining cultural touchstones that bind kids of our generation to that of their grandparents? This is like finding out they’re going to start shooting Bugs Bunny with live-action rabbits.
Here’s what constitutes “realism,” I guess: Betty as a 14-year-old in “oops, I did it again” mode and Veronica looking like a twentysomething trick from Long Island circa 1978. Super.
If Lileks doesn’t rant about this on the Bleat tonight, I’ll be heartbroken.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
NO!!!! At one time I had over 1500 archie comics. My kids have carried on the tradition. This is just wrong! I predict a change back. Just like the New Coke thing.
Rightwingsparkle on December 18, 2006 at 6:18 PM
So is Jughead going to be a baseball hat backward stoner and will Reggie finally come out?
bbz123 on December 18, 2006 at 6:28 PM
Worst product innovation since “New Coke” and the Mustang II.
Ali-Bubba on December 18, 2006 at 6:29 PM
I think I’m gonna be sick.
Let me guess…
… Archie’s gonna be gay now, too?
Maybe Betty could start dating Chuck, the only black character at Riverdale High, and he could change his name to DJ Chucky G.
Mrs. Grundy could have sex with some of the students and Mr. Weatherbee can molest a few of the boys.
All the endless possibilities to make the Archies “more realistic”.
I’m gonna go puke now.
Parley on December 18, 2006 at 6:30 PM
What about Jughead? Does he still wear that funny cap?
EF on December 18, 2006 at 6:40 PM
You could call this a companion story to KP’s column this week.
zerodamage on December 18, 2006 at 6:58 PM
As a comic book aficianado since they cost a dime. I foresee this new “look” for Betty & Veronica lasting less than six issues.
It took Frank Miller’s “Dark Knight” to pump new life into ‘Batman’. Joe Kubert has still managed and the men of Easy Company alive in six issue arcs and Trade Paperbacks.
I also remember the last big make-over ‘The Blackhawks’ suffered in the late 1960s, which effectively killed the franchise.
The only comic I would love to see brought back to life would be Walt Simonson’s & Arch Goodwin’s groundbreaking ‘Manhunter’ series from the early 1970s.
Jack.
Jack Deth on December 18, 2006 at 7:02 PM
I just wish that they would bring back some of my childhood favorites like SGT Rock, SGT Fury, The Unknown Soldier, and The Haunted Tank. I bet that most people don’t know that SGT Rock always ended his comics with “Make War No More”. I would love to see Rock and the combat weary Joes of Easy Company take on the evil that exists today.
But what do I know, maybe that is why I ended up as a Dumb Ass Tanker who commanded an M-60A3 Tank Company.
DAT60A3 on December 18, 2006 at 7:09 PM
The important question has neither been asked nor answered though:
Who does Allah think is hotter, Betty or Veronica?
Given his affinity for KP and some other blondes, I’m betting it’s Betty.
Not to be contrarian, but I like Veronica myself.
thirteen28 on December 18, 2006 at 7:13 PM
My past is going to hell all at once. Just saw on Power Line News that Joe Barbera died. He was smarter than the average cartoonist.
bdfaith on December 18, 2006 at 7:15 PM
Whoa,he was like 93-94 wasn’t he?
bbz123 on December 18, 2006 at 7:19 PM
I was wrong,95
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0053484/
bbz123 on December 18, 2006 at 7:22 PM
utterly retarded. and fromn the sketch in the link i can see that archy will still be walking around in a letter jacket anachronisticly anyway. if you’re going to change the art, go nuts with it. don’t go from trademark to unremarkable.
jummy on December 18, 2006 at 7:40 PM
Hey, don’t diss Lawn Guyland circa 1978. There was some pretty good action back then.
JammieWearingFool on December 18, 2006 at 8:16 PM
Pppffftttt. Realistic according to who? I’ve SEEN the young people of today’s American culture. Do I need to point out all of the things missing in the accompanying comic book frame? Like, for instance:
1) Neither Betty nor Veronica is exposing her navel.
2) Neither comic book figure appears to have an unnatural hair color.
3) Neither figure has any visible tattoos.
4) Other than V’s ear rings, neither figure has any visible body piercings.
5) Neither figure is adorned with tattered or torn clothing.
6) Both figures have smiles on their faces.
7) Neither figure has a cellphone permanently attached to the side of her head.
8) Prominent nipple outlines have been omitted from each figure (padded bras?).
9) Both girls appear to be healthy (no visible anorexia or obesity).
I think I could probably list many other omissions, but what’s the point?
CyberCipher on December 18, 2006 at 8:19 PM
My pronouncement?
It sucks.
I wish I were more eloquent but there it is.
CrimsonFisted on December 18, 2006 at 9:12 PM
Now Veronica looks like the raven-haired vixen I always thought her to be.
flipflop on December 18, 2006 at 9:16 PM
What, no content warning? I expect better judgement from you Allah. For shame!
This sort of thing is why we need to send Duncan Hunter to the White House, to stop radical secularists like you who want to poison the minds of children with this sort of pornography.
Watcher on December 18, 2006 at 9:22 PM
I didn’t realize they still made new issues of this stuff.
Neo on December 18, 2006 at 10:00 PM
hmmmm. If I was Archie I would be thinking mé·nage à trois.
Guardian on December 18, 2006 at 11:28 PM
Nooo! Betty looks like a little girl now!! No!! First Bratz dolls, now this? Betty was mah fav. Geez, I wonder what the rest of them are gonna look like.
Oy vey.
emmaline1138 on December 18, 2006 at 11:54 PM
This looks like the crowd to ask:
I had two of these Archie Christian comics when I was a kid:
http://www.carpsplace.com/spire/spire.htm
(the Archies are down the middle of the page).
Query: Were they “real” Archies … or done by another company entirely that maybe licensed the characters for the purpose? … or? Anyone know?
Anwyn on December 19, 2006 at 12:13 AM
They look sexy, nubile if you will. They don’t look like Cartoons for kids. It’s unrealistic images of a dram woman (by men for men): wide big eyed, button nose, full lips, ample bosom, button nose, and of course a blond and brunette to cover bases and size 4 or less figure. I am going to guess they show some badonkadonk (urban slang for full round a butt) in the stories.
I suspect cartoon collectors are mostly men. When I say men that’s a loose use of the word and includes those who live in their parent basment and don’t have a real job. How can I say it. It looks like cartoon porn. Too realistic. However there always has been this over sexulization of female cartoon characters. The female superheros always have this exaggerated female physique.
I suspect they also want to market to real kids, young girls. Well young girls are (GASP) looking at Lindsy, Paris, Nichole and Britney as their roll models, so the original smart sweet Betty and Veronica will not cut it. They have to whore it up a little. Don’t get me wrong I think the new characters are pretty, but there was nothing wrong with the old characters. Sad.
gmcjetpilot on December 19, 2006 at 1:11 AM
The old Betty and Veronica were better, and the new Betty is definitely too Britney Spears-ish, but the new Veronica is pretty good. Kinda looks like Mary Katharine.
Scot on December 19, 2006 at 3:41 AM
Right on the mark CyberCipher
How many comics have you people purchased in the last…oh 25 years! It’s marketing folks. No one who purchases comic books today can relate to the old Betty and Veronica, who were so dull, even back than, that only Archie would have given them a second look. Hell, they might as well be flappers to today’s comic book buyers!
So, get over it. And not every teenager out there belongs to the BLP Whore Patrol!
Dread Pirate Roberts VI on December 19, 2006 at 8:46 AM
It’s difficult enough to fight the “J-Lo” look at the clothing stores and the Abercrombie & Finch ads when I take my 11 year old daughter to shop but now this! I wonder if this change was a result of lost revenue at the publishing house or is it a new dooorway for the indoctrination of our youth by the liberals? I don’t want to sound like a conspiracy nutjob but when or where will it end? Must every media outlet including comic books show females of any age as eye-candy?
This is depressing.
wedgedonovan on December 19, 2006 at 8:53 AM
Cheers CyberCipher
I agree, neither of these drawings exposes significant skin, no mobile telephones, the jewelry is not over the top, a buttefly logo on a shirt rather than some political statement…
MS. Malkin exposed more skin than Veronica in her summertime Vents! And many of you howled with delight!
Critics of these comics are starting to sound like members of the religeon of perpetual outrage!
doufree on December 19, 2006 at 10:16 AM
My God man! God gave us women to look at! Girl-watching is one of the joys of life! And what’s so wrong with that?
Assuming you are male, did you stop looking at women when you found your wife or when you had your daughter! Assuming you are a women, do you wear nothing but flip-flops and housecoats?
Dread Pirate Roberts VI on December 19, 2006 at 11:06 AM
Betty
Ginger
Mallard T. Drake on December 19, 2006 at 11:29 AM
the concept of sacred anything is dead.
nuff said.
One Angry Christian on December 19, 2006 at 12:19 PM
For Dread Pirate Roberts VI – Clearly I have not stated my point so that you can understand it. This has nothing to do with what I look at or what you look at – it’s about what my child looks at everyday in the media and the affect those images have on her self image. It’s a comic book for God’s sake!!! I’m a simple man trying to help my child to grow up right in spite of the toxic effects the media heaps on our youth.
Is that clear enough? Dolt!
wedgedonovan on December 19, 2006 at 12:28 PM
Oh, so I’m stupid!
Well my friend, by my calculations at 11 years old your child is in the 6th grade. So, by this spring at the earliest, and by next fall at the latest, if you think you have a problem now, you just wait! For it is you who is in for the education of a lifetime!
So, unless you can keep your little princess in a jar, rots-a-ruck Pal!
Dread Pirate Roberts VI on December 19, 2006 at 1:21 PM
I’ll stick to Jimmy Corrigan & the ACME Novelty Warehouse, thank you. :P
Coronagold on December 19, 2006 at 3:40 PM
Is there nothing sacred?
Dave R. on December 19, 2006 at 5:19 PM