Riverdale, at least the first episode.

I watched the first episode of Riverdale, so if you haven't seen it consider it spoiler-y.

I am probably one of the few people who would consider themselves fans of both Twin Peaks and Archie so I am going to give this a bit of time to find its feet, but this first episode was very odd. Typical teen stuff, mostly, although definitely edgier. At least from what I have seen, but I'm not part of that audience, so I don't know. For the most part, all I could think was why Archie? I know the company wants to update its image, and I have no problem with that. I like what I like, and they can publish whatever they want. I'll buy what's interesting to me, and ignore what's not.
But, this was ALL about name/brand recognition, and it's SO far from the source material (well, maybe the new version, which I haven't been keeping up on, is closer) that I wonder what was the point. When you're adapting source material to a different medium, it's going to be different. I know. And I don't have any problem with making it wildly different. But, so many fewer people (I think) would have watched this if it weren't known characters that I wonder what was the point. It's NOT the same characters, except in a vastly generic way. I can't see the reason for using this setting, other than the name getting viewers. Which can't be enough.
Also, Luke Perry as Archie's dad? I am SO OLD.

I finally saw this, and...what on Earth was it supposed to be? Because it is not anything I recognize as Archie.

tony ingram wrote:Because it is not anything I recognize as Archie.

Right, which I think was the point. But, how do you both use them (for their name recognition) and then turn so far from their prior characterization? Too much "not your Dad's Archies" for my taste.
Not wrong, just weird.

No. Definitely wrong!

tony ingram wrote:No. Definitely wrong!

Ok, I'll take your word for it!

Mbast1 wrote:

tony ingram wrote:No. Definitely wrong!

Ok, I'll take your word for it!

Oh, I'm probably just letting my natural resistance to change blind me to the possibilities of a new interpretation. I just think some things should be left alone, y'know?

tony ingram wrote:Oh, I'm probably just letting my natural resistance to change blind me to the possibilities of a new interpretation. I just think some things should be left alone, y'know?

I just don't get why they chose Archie for this. At all.

It is rather baffling, the character has worked perfectly well as one thing for over 70 years, why turn him into something totally different?

tony ingram wrote:It is rather baffling, the character has worked perfectly well as one thing for over 70 years, why turn him into something totally different?

From what I've seen since I first saw that episode (and I've yet to see more) it's largely because Archie comics have been pushing to make changes. Meaning, it's possible they pushed for a tv show that was radically different from what had come before (such as the 1990 special/pilot, which I loved) and made this happen.