Riverdale: Afterlife with Archie Fan Theory Update

I’ve been keeping up to date with Riverdale – which I am continuing to enjoy despite its ups and downs – and I haven’t really seen anything that would further suggest that they are going to go down the Afterlife route which is what I said in the original article. It didn’t get a lot of traction at the time, in hindsight it was probably a bad time to post the article on reddit considering it was right after the third episode aired in the US and I’d only just finished the second one. However, overnight, for whatever reason, the article blew up and it has had over 1000 views in the last two days alone. Buzzfeed even linked to it in an article which was pretty nice.

With that in mind I would just like to do a quick update going over some new developments in relation to either supporting or disproving the theory that Riverdale will eventually go the Afterlife with Archie zombies route. I wasn’t going to do one of these before any more really strong evidence was suggested either way but there have been a few notable advancements which I’d like to sum up.

anigif_sub-buzz-27925-1488327993-2

Going into episode 5, I kind of stopped thinking about the whole zombies thing because nothing really seemed to happen to support it and then this gem of a troll happened at the very start of the flippin episode. You can imagine my reaction right? Considering this turned out to be Cheryl dreaming, I initially thought that this actually disproved the idea that it would go down the Afterlife route, because it’s really on the nose and kind of just seems like a nod to the comics. However this seemed to give a few other people the idea that Riverdale would do the whole zombies thing, and now they’ve gone back and maybe that’s why my original article, which was published three weeks ago, started to get some traction. Anyway, I wouldn’t really look too much into this other than the fact that the creators are obviously thinking about the whole zombies thing. The first thing you learn as an English/media/film student is that 99% of the time, nothing is put in by accident.

So let’s break down the new things we learned, with the main one being the fact that showrunner Roberto Aguirre Sacasa has stated that Sabrina (the teenage witch) is going to appear in the last episode of the 13 episode series. The Sweetwater river, which is the side where everything occurs with Jason, splits the two towns of Riverdale and Greendale where the Sabrina universe is. The creator has specifically said that Sabrina, a character who is almost wholly defined by being a witch, exists in this universe and will only be appearing in the last episode – talk about setting up the next season. Plus the whole symbolism of Jason traveling from the non-magical to the magical side and then returning.

In Afterlife, Jughead’s dog Hot Dog is hit and killed by a car. It is Sabrina who resurrects Hot Dog who becomes patient zero in the outbreak. Isn’t it also funny how Archie’s dog, (I think it’s Spot?), is specifically shown at his house yet Jughead’s more famous dog Hot Dog is very specifically shown as not existing in Riverdale. There is a quite touching scene where Spot sacrifices himself for Archie in Afterlife as well. Dogs aside, it is not too much of a stretch to see that Sabrina will have something to do with Jason and resurrection, with the reveal being right at the end of the first season thus setting up the next as full blown weird voodoo magic Riverdale.

chilling-adventures-of-sabrina-5-cover-780x491

Considering that we’re nearly halfway through the season, and we’ve learned barely anything more about the killer since episode 2, it suggests that it’s not the traditional murder mystery type story that it is pretending to be. There are still huge questions relating to the scene with the coroner and Jason’s body. We know: his feet were frozen, he was bound with rope, he was shot in the head and he died a week after the 4th of July which is when Archie/Grundy heard the shot fired which everyone is assuming is the one which killed Jason. The couple of new posts on reddit I’ve seen have barely mentioned this. There’s no way he went missing a week before the 4th of July and then got killed on the day. He has to have been killed a week after the 4th of July.

Then there’s Dilton. No one really believes that Dilton is the one that killed Jason, yet he fired the only shot which was heard on the 4th of July, the day Jason went missing and a week before he was killed. I think in coming episodes, they’re going to have to go deeper into Dilton firing the gun because that shot couldn’t have been the shot which killed Jason because even if he’d been reanimated as a zombie, the headshot would’ve killed him (also the whole out of place thing with Dilton being a survival nut could very handily work out if Afterlife happens). I still think the most likely explanation, which was mentioned in the first article, is that someone out there (possibly Sabrina) had to tie up a zombie Jason or ended up with him after stuffing up some witchcraft and then was forced to kill him. Somewhere along the way, someone or something got bitten, which will eventually emerge from the woods, leading to the outbreak right at the end of the season, where Sabrina will reveal what happened and the next season will be full blown Afterlife.

Apologies for the long-windedness of this but I haven’t seen a very clear summary of the theory as yet. I’ll be keeping up to to date with the show and will update with any new info. As always, let me know what you think and have a good one.

Cheers,

JK Pimento

 

 

A Coen Brothers Critique: Who is Hail, Caesar For?

I just finished watching Hail, Caesar! the latest film to be written, directed and produced by the Coen Brothers. For some reason, I PAID for this film on blu-ray and when it finished all I could think was ‘I got nothing out of this’. Now I don’t know why I bought the film, I think for some reason I thought it was a Wes Anderson film. Considering that The Grand Budapest Hotel is one of my most favourite films of recent years, I was looking forward to a new Anderson film. But no, just another Coen brothers affair and I’m left dissapointed.

Hail, Caesar! is a day in the life of a big shot producer, Josh Brolin, at a big movie studio in the Golden Age of Cinema, 1950’s Hollywood. Now I’m no schmuck, I’ve studied film and what the Golden Age was like, so I’m not one to miss the references and all that. Also many of the actors in the film I really enjoy, but for the most part, there are so many shoved in that many only have a single scene or two, so there is limited character development or even room for comedy. This has the added overall effect of taking time away from the main plot lines. In the end, I was left feeling like Hail, Caesar! was a fun, kinda quirky historical piece and that was it. I’ll probably never think about it again.

giphy1

Don’t get me wrong, for all intents and purposes it’s a very well crafted and executed film but there’s so little substance, and I know the Coen Brothers films are more about characters than plot, but come on give me something to follow, someone to root for. I think that’s the problem with Coen Brother’s films, they are well made and unique movies with lots of star power so they’re really hard to criticize. I like the fact that they’re meant to be for an audience of a certain educational level and you get more out of them the more you watch them. However, this is meant to be a comedy and I barely laughed a single time. I like the actors in the movie, appreciate the characters, understand (most) of the movie industry references and yet I have no reason to watch it again and have no idea who I would recommend this to.

Maybe my expectations were too high, but if someone like me found the film forgettable then who is it for? 1950’s cinema historians, the George Clooney Josh Brolin fan club, anyone still alive today who worked in the Golden Age of Cinema? The Coen Brother’s could take a lesson out of Anderson’s book in that The Grand Budapest Hotel featured a tonne of actors playing oddball characters, yet each was given appropriate screen time for their role, the narrative was charming and engaging and we had likeable characters to root for, oddball characters to laugh at and villainous characters to despise.

Just like Anchorman 2 was criticized for straying into the self-indulgent at times, I feel as though the Coen Brothers are at risk of the same here. Fargo was a fine film, I enjoyed it much more the second time when I understood more about the subverting of cinema conventions in the narrative. The Big Lebowski is a cult classic that I have to watch again, No Country for Old Men was a great film with a strong central plot and Inside Llewyn Davis was a critically lauded film that I’m yet to see. The Coen Brothers make well crafted movies…when they focus on the narrative.

Once again the problem remains, who is Hail, Caesar! for?