Lots of things have been said recently here about Brazilian Disney comics but things
aren't exactly as it was said.
The fact that the publisher was Italian doesn't means nothing by now. The founder of
Editora Abril is dead for a good time and by now the comics branch of his empire is
nothing but a small slice. Comics aren't doing very well in Brazil these days.
In fact Editora Abril started in the eraly 50's with O Pato Donald (Donald Duck).
Abril's late founder Victor Civita said (imitating Disney's statement that everything
started with a mouse) that everything started with a duck -- Donald Duck's comic.
Abril was not the first Disney publisher in Brazil. Disney material had been
published earlier by Adolfo Aizen. Aizen was a pioneer and published several comics
in a set of publications that reprinted newspaper syndicated materials, Big Little
Books and a lot of stuff. By the wartime he had some difficulty to buy paper and sold
his publishing house to a newspaper owned by the Government. After wartime he came
back to the field and started a new publishing housed named Ebal. Ebal's very first
publication was Selecoes Coloridas a magazine that published Disney comics. It lasted
about one or two years. then Aizen acquired Classics Illustrated, Superman and other
material and for 30 years was the most respected comics publisher in Brazil.
In late forties he declined to published Disney material. Aizen was sort of a Scrooge
McDuck and probably declined Disney because the agent wanted more money than he
wanted to pay.
Then Victor Civita (Abril's founder) accepted the offer and started publishing Donald
Duck. Civita also publish a set of minor comic books such as Misterix with Italian
and Argentinian material or such but everything folded. Only Donald made a profit.
Donald was a large-size publication (same size as Time and Newsweek). Then after some
couple or three dozen issues it reduced its size by almost the half and became a
weekly witrh 32 pagesin color more or less the same size as the Italian Topolino.
A monthly Mickey Mouse comic came a short while after. That Mickey had 48 pages and
32 were in color. Both Donald and Mickey comics published almoist exclusively
material from Gold Key (I think they also republished some syndicated material to
fill pages). that lasted until the early sixties.
In the early sixties Donald comic started to be published every other week. In the
in-between weeks a new title started: Ze Carioca! In fact Ze Carioca was the same
magazine as Donald. But the logo changed to: O Pato Donald presents Ze Carioca. Ze
Carioca followed the same numbering than Donald, but even numbers were Pato Donald
and odd numbers were Ze Carioca. That was done only for distribution purposes. So the
newsstandmen could know which issue had to be returned (both stayed two weeks at the
stands). Mickey stayed as a monthly but in the mid-sixties became a 64-page all color
publication.
By that time Abril was trying other kind of publications and quickly became Brazil's
major publisher, something similar to Mondadori, with news magazines, fashion
magazines and adult magazines. Disney comics gave them the profits necessary for
their expanding.
A third disney comic came soon after and become its best-seller: Almanaque Tio
Patinhas (Giant Uncle Scrooge). Originally an one-shot, them a quarterly or so, soon
Almanaque Tio Patinhas became a monthly. Abril realized that larger comics sold more.
Soon Tio Patinhas lost the "Almanach" in its title and became just Tio Patinhas. It
had 96 pages and published a lot of Barks material. It expanded to 132 pages a short
while after. Some years after a new Almanach (Almanaque Disney) with 160 pages
followed and sold even more. Printing runs for both Tio Patinhas and Almanaque Disney
surpassed 500,000 copies and that was incredible for Brazil.
Ze Carioca and Donald stayed as 32-pagers. Initially Ze Carioca published original
brazilian material, then for a short time they started to pick Mickey stories and
retouch Mickey transforming it in Ze Carioca. That's why in some of such stories
Goofy teamed with Ze Carioca in Paul Murry stories! Luckly that gimmick didn't last.
Brazilian production started again. Old Ze Carioca comic strips from the 40's were
used, then they started again to publish new material, notedly by Renato Canini. But
Canini's personal style disgusted the powers that be at Disney and he was fired.
We are now in late 60's/early 70's. Disney comics were the only publications in the
small format and growing even more in popularity. By that time they started to
develop new stoiries with thew rest of Disney characters and also started to use
Western material produced for foreign publishers (like Fethry Duck), and also to use
material from countries like Sweden or Denmark (I'm not sure exactly which sources).
The Italian material was added only some years later.
By then Abril was publishing almost 400 pages/month in its several titles. And they
have already started a series of Disney reprints. Abril expanded it comics line by
adding Monica (by Mauricio de Souza, Brazilian's most sucessful creator) and a lot of
American comics like Little Lulu etc. By 1974 every publisher in Brazil reduced the
size of its comics from American comic-book format to Abril's small format -- all but
Aizen. Aizen did that just several years later but then it was too late and his
empire had declined by then.
In the 80's Abril was the most powerful publisher in every field and leader in
comics. Disney were the top comics followed by Mauricio de Souza's ones. In mid-80's
the final stroke at Aizen was done when Abril took all DC titles from him. Prior
that, Aizen had lost Marvel to a series of other publishers, including Abril. Then
Abril took all Marvel titles from the others and was the one that published
simultaneously Disney, De Souza, Marvel, DC and lots more.
Then happened this:
De Souza's contract with Abril expired and all his titles went to its arch-rival
Editora Globo. Since mid-eighties Globo and Abril share the 1st place in comics
publishing (De Souza's own line had surpassed by far every other title in Brazil
including Disney). Abril expanded its Disney line in order to compete with Globo.
Since Disney was Abril steadier property, they increased its titles. Goofy, Daysy and
other minor characters had their own titles. Some of them folded, some lasted. It
must be said that Abril used by then every source possible and also became the
biggest foreign Disney-material producer.
By now Brazilian production is restricted but there are a lot of Disney titles. But
Abril is increasing each time more their super-heroes publications (from Marvel and
DC).
Gossips say that Marvel made a partnership with Panini and soon will be publishing
Marvel super-heroes by themselves in Brazil, and soon Abril will be left only with
Disney (for which they have exclusive rights in comics) and DC, Image and others (no
exclusive rights). De Souza is still with Globo and still Brazilian's top seller.
No Italian model, not a great marketing strategy. Abril's sucess with Disney came
because for some time those were the only comics in small size and that created a
space for them in newstands. Along with Disney popularity, Abril made big profits and
paved the way for the awful small-sized era that ended only when the same Abril made
big profits with Frank Miller's Dark Knight Returns and realized that the American
format was also commercial.
But no marketing genius at the head of all those publishers -- just a lot of
bureaucrats that feared losing their jobs doing just what was already succcessful.
Everything was discovered by accident and every trial to do something different in
Brazil was a failure -- because they tried the new formats with the wrong material!
(Email removed)
--------------------------------
End of Disney comics Digest V97 Issue #280
******************************************
Author
Topic: 199712
(314 messages)
Ota
BRAZILIAN DISNEY COMICS
Message 211 -
1997-12-22 at 21:52:24
D Decker
Disney comics Digest V97 #278
Message 212 -
1997-12-23 at 00:53:35
On Dec 22, 6:47pm, Eta Beta wrote:
> Why does the country that generated Disney and the Disney "universe", not
> just physically, but culturally, reject them now?
>
The _characters_ seem to still be popular, though they're more icons
and corporate symbols now. My under-two-years-old niece has somehow
discovered "Mouse Mickey" (on her own -- no help from me) and is now
a fair fanatic about MM, though I don't think she's ever seen any
actual animated cartoons or (obviously) read any comic books. The
character design alone is powerfully appealing, so Disney can sell
a lot of T-shirts and stuf' just with pictures of the characters. I
do think that over the years, Disney the corporate entity lost interest
in the traditional cartoon characters (Mickey, Donald, et al) as it
went out to conquer new worlds in live-action movies and theme parks.
Overseas, the characters were in the hands of energetic publishers
who depended on comic books and children's books to make a living and
so promoted them, while in the US Disney was largely indifferent to
the comics end of things. The US comics industry has inherent problems
(a broken-down system of magazine distribution for one) that have
probably doomed the traditional pamphlet-style comic book sooner or
later, Disney or Marvel or DC or Archie. My alternate world fantasy
has a combined effort of Western Publishing and Disney in the late
'50s or early '60s realizing the traditional comic book was doomed
and publishing a weekly WDC&S with massive promotion behind it,
completely changing the way comic books were produced and sold in
the US. Didn't happen, though.
> Are the Europeans ahead, because they are more sensible towards
> artistical expressions, or actually behind, because everything that
> happens in the States will nearly certainly happen here in another five
> years, as it usually does? (shiver...)
>
I'm not very optimistic about Europe, either. You may have another few
years because your magazine distribution system isn't corrupt, and
you have major publishers involved. But aren't sales of the weeklies
down all over northern Europe compared to what they were a few years
ago? When I was in Paris this past spring and buying comic albums like
a madman, it dawned on me that there weren't many _new_ series. I could
buy albums of Lucky Luke that have been in print since 1948, any Asterix
albums published since 1962 or so, but there just weren't many popular
new series. I'm told the traditional French/Belgian comics weekly has
declined to just one or two titles now, so new albums have to be thrown
on to the market without the former exposure as a serial in one of the
weeklies. Album sales vary from print runs in the million-range for
Asterix to a few thousand for a new title from an unknown creator. I
was also told by the people at Egmont that in other countries outside
France and Belgium, the high point for album sales was in the '70s,
and sales of the format have declined drastically ever since. Freddy
Milton was telling me how even his own kids would rather watch TV
than pull any of the great albums off the shelves where he stores
his vast collection and read it. I think comic books as a mass medium
are in deep trouble, and the meltdown has hit first in the US because
of our distribution system being the mess it is. I'm not sure even
the best distribution system would change the ultimate outcome, though.
Kids!are!not!reading!
--Dwight (the eternal pessimist) Decker
> Why does the country that generated Disney and the Disney "universe", not
> just physically, but culturally, reject them now?
>
The _characters_ seem to still be popular, though they're more icons
and corporate symbols now. My under-two-years-old niece has somehow
discovered "Mouse Mickey" (on her own -- no help from me) and is now
a fair fanatic about MM, though I don't think she's ever seen any
actual animated cartoons or (obviously) read any comic books. The
character design alone is powerfully appealing, so Disney can sell
a lot of T-shirts and stuf' just with pictures of the characters. I
do think that over the years, Disney the corporate entity lost interest
in the traditional cartoon characters (Mickey, Donald, et al) as it
went out to conquer new worlds in live-action movies and theme parks.
Overseas, the characters were in the hands of energetic publishers
who depended on comic books and children's books to make a living and
so promoted them, while in the US Disney was largely indifferent to
the comics end of things. The US comics industry has inherent problems
(a broken-down system of magazine distribution for one) that have
probably doomed the traditional pamphlet-style comic book sooner or
later, Disney or Marvel or DC or Archie. My alternate world fantasy
has a combined effort of Western Publishing and Disney in the late
'50s or early '60s realizing the traditional comic book was doomed
and publishing a weekly WDC&S with massive promotion behind it,
completely changing the way comic books were produced and sold in
the US. Didn't happen, though.
> Are the Europeans ahead, because they are more sensible towards
> artistical expressions, or actually behind, because everything that
> happens in the States will nearly certainly happen here in another five
> years, as it usually does? (shiver...)
>
I'm not very optimistic about Europe, either. You may have another few
years because your magazine distribution system isn't corrupt, and
you have major publishers involved. But aren't sales of the weeklies
down all over northern Europe compared to what they were a few years
ago? When I was in Paris this past spring and buying comic albums like
a madman, it dawned on me that there weren't many _new_ series. I could
buy albums of Lucky Luke that have been in print since 1948, any Asterix
albums published since 1962 or so, but there just weren't many popular
new series. I'm told the traditional French/Belgian comics weekly has
declined to just one or two titles now, so new albums have to be thrown
on to the market without the former exposure as a serial in one of the
weeklies. Album sales vary from print runs in the million-range for
Asterix to a few thousand for a new title from an unknown creator. I
was also told by the people at Egmont that in other countries outside
France and Belgium, the high point for album sales was in the '70s,
and sales of the format have declined drastically ever since. Freddy
Milton was telling me how even his own kids would rather watch TV
than pull any of the great albums off the shelves where he stores
his vast collection and read it. I think comic books as a mass medium
are in deep trouble, and the meltdown has hit first in the US because
of our distribution system being the mess it is. I'm not sure even
the best distribution system would change the ultimate outcome, though.
Kids!are!not!reading!
--Dwight (the eternal pessimist) Decker
D Decker
Disney comics from USA and the Netherlands
Message 213 -
1997-12-23 at 00:58:07
On Dec 21, 9:37pm, Harry Fluks wrote:
> No, they are different, just like the Beagle Boys and Flintheart Glomgold
> are different. The Dutch have a clear division between the "old" Duck
> world and the Ducktales world. (They only made one minor mistake
> once, stating Glomgold was from Scotland in the "old" Duck universe...)
>
Was it a mistake? I have a Dutch Scrooge album that reprints the first
Glomgold story, and it looked as though a map of Africa was deliberately
miscolored to make it unrecognizable and his home country was given a
made-up fantasy name. At the time the album was published, South Africa
was unpopular with much of the rest of the world, so I wonder if somebody
wanted to avoid any possible controversy. At the same time, the back-up
story in the same album _didn't_ change a reference to Havana, Cuba that
was made obsolete by Castro's take-over.
--Dwight Decker
> No, they are different, just like the Beagle Boys and Flintheart Glomgold
> are different. The Dutch have a clear division between the "old" Duck
> world and the Ducktales world. (They only made one minor mistake
> once, stating Glomgold was from Scotland in the "old" Duck universe...)
>
Was it a mistake? I have a Dutch Scrooge album that reprints the first
Glomgold story, and it looked as though a map of Africa was deliberately
miscolored to make it unrecognizable and his home country was given a
made-up fantasy name. At the time the album was published, South Africa
was unpopular with much of the rest of the world, so I wonder if somebody
wanted to avoid any possible controversy. At the same time, the back-up
story in the same album _didn't_ change a reference to Havana, Cuba that
was made obsolete by Castro's take-over.
--Dwight Decker
Klirrdibir
Hitchcock-Rosa
Message 214 -
1997-12-23 at 01:49:05
It=B4s Hitchcock=B4s Sabotage, where the villain wents down from the Stat=
ue of=0ALiberty after ruining his suit.=0A
ue of=0ALiberty after ruining his suit.=0A
Donald D. Markstein
Junkville Journal
Message 215 -
1997-12-23 at 02:47:20
Well, I've done it again -- neglected this group for
weeks, possibly months on end, while I ran off doing other
things. In this case, I've been (in addition to trying to earn
a living) making archival-quality scans of family photos, some
going back as much as 130 years, and putting them on CD-ROM. I
had a deadline for it -- very tight, considering how many
HUNDREDS of photos are involved -- in that we'd scheduled a
December weekend for splitting them up, after which they'd never
all be in the same place again. But all of a sudden, the get-
together was rescheduled for January, and I now have plenty of
time to finish up the job. So this looks like a good time to
FINALLY catch up on things like this.
As usual when I run away like this, I'll just skim the
older stuff, and respond only to things from the past couple of
weeks. EXCEPT -- I see from my skimming that when I got wrapped
up in the family stuff, there was an unanswered question
addressed to me, from --
TARJEI KIDD OLSEN --
>>"I don't know if I've seen any of your stories (though I
>>probably have). Could you tell me which # they are in? I
>>couldn't find a file on you in the Creators section of the
>>database."
The unfortunate fact is, most of my published stories
aren't Disney, and most of my Disney stories aren't published.
(I sold a fair number to Disney Comics in the early '90s, and
they now languish in filing cabinets.) I'm writing for Egmont
more regularly now, and will hopefully be writing for them more
regularly yet in the reasonably near future. I'll send a list to
the Database when I've accumulated enough to make it worthwhile.
And now to the more current stuff . . .
PER STARBACK --
I have no objection to advertisement per se, and am
sometimes puzzled by the distinction many people make between
words designed to induce us to buy something and words designed
to change the way we think. They say one is protected by the
concept of free expression and the other is not. But I just
can't see a clear dividing line between the two; and surely, a
desire to make money can't be a less pure motive than
propagandizing for a political agenda.
Bringing this down to the level of our little mailing
list, it's well established that this is not purely a free-
speech zone. Off-topic discussion is usually reined in; and we
almost always avoid words deemed inappropriate for children (you
know which words I'm talking about -- you learned them on the
playground as a child). Therefore, there is no inconsistency in
discouraging advertising -- if other types of expression are
frowned upon, advertising can be as well.
What the heck, tho, I'm not against it, at least if it
stays on-topic. The advertisement in question was for Disney
comics -- and what could be more appropriate than that? I can
see where even on-topic ads might get out of hand, and if they
do, then we can consider the question again. At the moment, tho,
I say, go for it.
(But what a Burning Topic it is, eh? In the weeks since
the question was posted, this is -- what, the second or the
third response?)
HOY MURPHY --
>>"I can't believe we could be in a situation where there are no
>>Disney comics published in the United States!"
And yet, that situation prevailed for two years, between
the time Western gave up the license (1982 -- not, as a couple
of people have suggested, the late '70s) and Gladstone's
original run. And for several years before that, Disney comics
had been published only sporadically, as Western grew less and
less interested in putting out comics at all. In fact -- there
was a time when I thought WDC&S had finally given up the ghost
one issue short of #500.
>>(from a later posting:) "Let Egmont have the license for regular
>>comics and let them try to publish and market the comics in
>>the United States."
By "Let Egmont have", I guess you mean "Try to talk
Egmont into taking". You might (if you dredge your memory)
recall that Egmont was among those considering the U.S. Disney
license several years ago, when Disney Comics folded. For a wide
variety of reasons (some of which had little or nothing to do
with the U.S. market) they decided it wasn't for them. Some of
those conditions have changed -- but still, I don't see Egmont
hovering vulture-like over Gladstone, awaiting its opportunity
to strike.
DEAN REKICH --
>>"While these contain reprints of comic stories, these
>>certainly would not be considered comic books by anyone."
You're just plain wrong here, when you say "certainly"
and "by anyone". There are some whose definitions of "comic
books" extend beyond those flimsy little 7x10 pamphlets that
have unfortunately been the norm in America for the past couple
of generations.
>>"I think the 7 dollar prestige format "comic books" have been
>>the exact opposite direction that Gladstone should have been
>>going in."
But they DID try the other direction -- and the less-
expensive "Penny Pincher" comics didn't get enough support from
the buying public to survive.
>>"Are 7 dollar comic books what the fans want or what Gladstone
>>wants?"
My guess would be neither -- but they're the ones
Gladstone can sell without losing money -- and even then, it's
only by putting a dollop of "fan favorite" stuff (e.g., new Rosa
material) in each one that they can make it. Given a change in
the market that goes into effect first of the year (i.e., new
policies on the part of about 30-40% of America's newsstand
distributors), the regular Gladstone comics simply are no longer
viable. The choice is not between regular comics and $7 ones --
it's between $7 comics and none at all.
>>"Gladstone is basically accepting the fact that they will not
>>be in business in 10 to 20 years."
If, by "in business", you mean "publishing Disney
comics", you're being wildly optimistic. Try ONE year. That's
when their license is next up for renewal. Given the current
state of affairs, does it seem likely they'll go through the
hassle of negotiation again? You tell me.
A couple of your suggestions involve Gladstone giving up
the license, either partially or completely. Be careful what you
wish for. I don't see a mad scramble among publishers to take
it over.
DWIGHT DECKER --
>>"American comic books now are in such deep doo-doo that I
>>really think it's too late here."
I disagree, but I don't think traditional thinking is
going to help -- nor is a company the size of Gladstone going to
reverse the trend, for the simple reason that it doesn't have
the resources. I look at the success Archie Comics has had with
its digest-size comics, available at every supermarket checkout
point, and I think THAT might be where America's future comics
readers come from. Of course, those point-of-purchase slots cost
big bucks -- but they're paying off for Archie, which is
marketing to parents, with a line of comics that parents trust
to provide wholesome entertainment for their kids.
Disney comics could be done that way -- ARE being done;
look at the Adventure Digest, tho that's no longer what we think
of as "traditional" Disney comics. The "traditional" line is
also one that parents trust, and that DOES deliver high-quality
entertainment to their kids. The sticking point is simply
getting into those slots...
DAVE RAWSON --
Thanx for noticing the scheduling of "The New Look" --
this is the first I'D heard of its actual upcoming publication.
(So, how does a guy get "in the loop" to know about these
things, as you apparently are and I'm not?) (And how NICE to
have credits on these stories, so you knew it was mine -- and oh
yes, thanks again, Byron!)
What you call "an unusual montage effect that works very
well, I think", I call "trying to cram a whole lot of action
into a teeny-weeny space." I was delighted at how well it turned
out, actually drawn -- in scripting it, I was biting my nails,
wondering if the artist would be able to pull it off as clearly
as I could see it in my head.
By the way, the ending is something I kinda pulled out of
my hat. I hadn't specified one in the springboard, and Lars
Bergstrom (the editor) said he'd be interested in seeing who
came out on top. That's when it struck me -- for either side to
win in any expectable way would be kind of a let-down, so I had
to dream up something weird. I'm just glad it worked out as well
as it did.
(Shameless self-promotion:) "It's all how you look at it"
is kind of a running theme of mine. The story I'm scripting
right now gets the main character involved in a traditional
fairy tale, except that the hero, from this point of view,
appears to be the bad guy.
GARY LEACH --
Sorry if this strikes you as bad taste, but have you guys
considered trying to "ride" the superhero trend by reprinting a
few PAPERINIK stories? They seem to be reasonably popular where
they've been done, and some people here actually claim they're
decent reading. Maybe a couple stuck in the back of WDC&S could
test the waters, leading to a mini-series, chrome covers,
killing off a nephew... Well, kidding about the last couple,
but seriously, that take on the Duck character might be worth
looking into for the American market.
MARK A. SEMICH --
Well excuse me for living, but I LOVED the Archie/
Punisher cross-over. Most crossovers are between characters so
similar in form and outlook that they both come off as insipid
-- but the contrast between those two made for a very lively
story.
Quack, Don=
weeks, possibly months on end, while I ran off doing other
things. In this case, I've been (in addition to trying to earn
a living) making archival-quality scans of family photos, some
going back as much as 130 years, and putting them on CD-ROM. I
had a deadline for it -- very tight, considering how many
HUNDREDS of photos are involved -- in that we'd scheduled a
December weekend for splitting them up, after which they'd never
all be in the same place again. But all of a sudden, the get-
together was rescheduled for January, and I now have plenty of
time to finish up the job. So this looks like a good time to
FINALLY catch up on things like this.
As usual when I run away like this, I'll just skim the
older stuff, and respond only to things from the past couple of
weeks. EXCEPT -- I see from my skimming that when I got wrapped
up in the family stuff, there was an unanswered question
addressed to me, from --
TARJEI KIDD OLSEN --
>>"I don't know if I've seen any of your stories (though I
>>probably have). Could you tell me which # they are in? I
>>couldn't find a file on you in the Creators section of the
>>database."
The unfortunate fact is, most of my published stories
aren't Disney, and most of my Disney stories aren't published.
(I sold a fair number to Disney Comics in the early '90s, and
they now languish in filing cabinets.) I'm writing for Egmont
more regularly now, and will hopefully be writing for them more
regularly yet in the reasonably near future. I'll send a list to
the Database when I've accumulated enough to make it worthwhile.
And now to the more current stuff . . .
PER STARBACK --
I have no objection to advertisement per se, and am
sometimes puzzled by the distinction many people make between
words designed to induce us to buy something and words designed
to change the way we think. They say one is protected by the
concept of free expression and the other is not. But I just
can't see a clear dividing line between the two; and surely, a
desire to make money can't be a less pure motive than
propagandizing for a political agenda.
Bringing this down to the level of our little mailing
list, it's well established that this is not purely a free-
speech zone. Off-topic discussion is usually reined in; and we
almost always avoid words deemed inappropriate for children (you
know which words I'm talking about -- you learned them on the
playground as a child). Therefore, there is no inconsistency in
discouraging advertising -- if other types of expression are
frowned upon, advertising can be as well.
What the heck, tho, I'm not against it, at least if it
stays on-topic. The advertisement in question was for Disney
comics -- and what could be more appropriate than that? I can
see where even on-topic ads might get out of hand, and if they
do, then we can consider the question again. At the moment, tho,
I say, go for it.
(But what a Burning Topic it is, eh? In the weeks since
the question was posted, this is -- what, the second or the
third response?)
HOY MURPHY --
>>"I can't believe we could be in a situation where there are no
>>Disney comics published in the United States!"
And yet, that situation prevailed for two years, between
the time Western gave up the license (1982 -- not, as a couple
of people have suggested, the late '70s) and Gladstone's
original run. And for several years before that, Disney comics
had been published only sporadically, as Western grew less and
less interested in putting out comics at all. In fact -- there
was a time when I thought WDC&S had finally given up the ghost
one issue short of #500.
>>(from a later posting:) "Let Egmont have the license for regular
>>comics and let them try to publish and market the comics in
>>the United States."
By "Let Egmont have", I guess you mean "Try to talk
Egmont into taking". You might (if you dredge your memory)
recall that Egmont was among those considering the U.S. Disney
license several years ago, when Disney Comics folded. For a wide
variety of reasons (some of which had little or nothing to do
with the U.S. market) they decided it wasn't for them. Some of
those conditions have changed -- but still, I don't see Egmont
hovering vulture-like over Gladstone, awaiting its opportunity
to strike.
DEAN REKICH --
>>"While these contain reprints of comic stories, these
>>certainly would not be considered comic books by anyone."
You're just plain wrong here, when you say "certainly"
and "by anyone". There are some whose definitions of "comic
books" extend beyond those flimsy little 7x10 pamphlets that
have unfortunately been the norm in America for the past couple
of generations.
>>"I think the 7 dollar prestige format "comic books" have been
>>the exact opposite direction that Gladstone should have been
>>going in."
But they DID try the other direction -- and the less-
expensive "Penny Pincher" comics didn't get enough support from
the buying public to survive.
>>"Are 7 dollar comic books what the fans want or what Gladstone
>>wants?"
My guess would be neither -- but they're the ones
Gladstone can sell without losing money -- and even then, it's
only by putting a dollop of "fan favorite" stuff (e.g., new Rosa
material) in each one that they can make it. Given a change in
the market that goes into effect first of the year (i.e., new
policies on the part of about 30-40% of America's newsstand
distributors), the regular Gladstone comics simply are no longer
viable. The choice is not between regular comics and $7 ones --
it's between $7 comics and none at all.
>>"Gladstone is basically accepting the fact that they will not
>>be in business in 10 to 20 years."
If, by "in business", you mean "publishing Disney
comics", you're being wildly optimistic. Try ONE year. That's
when their license is next up for renewal. Given the current
state of affairs, does it seem likely they'll go through the
hassle of negotiation again? You tell me.
A couple of your suggestions involve Gladstone giving up
the license, either partially or completely. Be careful what you
wish for. I don't see a mad scramble among publishers to take
it over.
DWIGHT DECKER --
>>"American comic books now are in such deep doo-doo that I
>>really think it's too late here."
I disagree, but I don't think traditional thinking is
going to help -- nor is a company the size of Gladstone going to
reverse the trend, for the simple reason that it doesn't have
the resources. I look at the success Archie Comics has had with
its digest-size comics, available at every supermarket checkout
point, and I think THAT might be where America's future comics
readers come from. Of course, those point-of-purchase slots cost
big bucks -- but they're paying off for Archie, which is
marketing to parents, with a line of comics that parents trust
to provide wholesome entertainment for their kids.
Disney comics could be done that way -- ARE being done;
look at the Adventure Digest, tho that's no longer what we think
of as "traditional" Disney comics. The "traditional" line is
also one that parents trust, and that DOES deliver high-quality
entertainment to their kids. The sticking point is simply
getting into those slots...
DAVE RAWSON --
Thanx for noticing the scheduling of "The New Look" --
this is the first I'D heard of its actual upcoming publication.
(So, how does a guy get "in the loop" to know about these
things, as you apparently are and I'm not?) (And how NICE to
have credits on these stories, so you knew it was mine -- and oh
yes, thanks again, Byron!)
What you call "an unusual montage effect that works very
well, I think", I call "trying to cram a whole lot of action
into a teeny-weeny space." I was delighted at how well it turned
out, actually drawn -- in scripting it, I was biting my nails,
wondering if the artist would be able to pull it off as clearly
as I could see it in my head.
By the way, the ending is something I kinda pulled out of
my hat. I hadn't specified one in the springboard, and Lars
Bergstrom (the editor) said he'd be interested in seeing who
came out on top. That's when it struck me -- for either side to
win in any expectable way would be kind of a let-down, so I had
to dream up something weird. I'm just glad it worked out as well
as it did.
(Shameless self-promotion:) "It's all how you look at it"
is kind of a running theme of mine. The story I'm scripting
right now gets the main character involved in a traditional
fairy tale, except that the hero, from this point of view,
appears to be the bad guy.
GARY LEACH --
Sorry if this strikes you as bad taste, but have you guys
considered trying to "ride" the superhero trend by reprinting a
few PAPERINIK stories? They seem to be reasonably popular where
they've been done, and some people here actually claim they're
decent reading. Maybe a couple stuck in the back of WDC&S could
test the waters, leading to a mini-series, chrome covers,
killing off a nephew... Well, kidding about the last couple,
but seriously, that take on the Duck character might be worth
looking into for the American market.
MARK A. SEMICH --
Well excuse me for living, but I LOVED the Archie/
Punisher cross-over. Most crossovers are between characters so
similar in form and outlook that they both come off as insipid
-- but the contrast between those two made for a very lively
story.
Quack, Don=
Matthew R. Sommer
Increasing US circulation
Message 216 -
1997-12-23 at 06:20:51
hey guys and gals... long time no post... i'm afraid i've been lurking
thru all of the digests lately, and was taken by surprise by the
GLADSTONE anouncement that they were ceasing publication of most of
their monthly titles.
we can all second guess and criticize GLADSTONE with 20/20 hindsight,
but i do have one question thats been bugging me about newstand
distribution for a loooong time, and maybe someone with more industry
knowledge can enlighten me a bit--
why doesnt Disney authorize "digests" ala the Archie comics?
I know the Disney Adventures mag sells huge amounts, most likely because
it's in the checkout line, and a familiar name, something parents can
grab for their kids and not have to worry about content... just like all
of the archie books available in gorcery stores acorss the country. Is
there something i don't see here? I was under the impression the
Archies were pretty successful, and if so, why not a disney line of the
exact same style? (i.e. thick books with many stories, a mix of old and
new material, 4 color newsprint, and an economical price...)
Too much investment? Too little profit?? Why WOULDNT they try something
like this? I'd really be interested in knowing.
selling Disney characters in the direct market is even more pointless
for gaining new readers than it is for other superhero books (see the
newest issue of THE COMICS JOURNAL for an excellent discussion on the
failures of the direct market system...).
The reason why i think the ducks are so popular in Europe is simply that
they are available! on the newstands, ever week!! Just being out there
counts for a lot i think...Top it off that the digests give you 5 or 6
or more complete stories for your money... doesnt this seem to be more
value for your dollar that the wafer-thin, $2 comics most people are
used to?
if this has been discussed in an earlier digest, please forgive me! But
this is a question thats been bugging me for a good while.
-matt-
p.s. i havent yet gotten my copy of Don's 50th Anniv. story, but I'm
really baffled by what i've been hearing with this "intro" fiasco... Is
Blum a part of this strange "barks faction" which seems to have it in
for Don for some reason?? If so, i think we can well do without his so
called "criticisms". Are Rosa fans sensitive? Well, tell me who DOESNT
want to defend a writer/artist they particularly like? Are we blind to
certain faults? i dont think so... but you don't put your head into the
lion's mouth and "flick his love-spuds" witha wet towel, and then
complain when he bites your head off.... ((first person to get that
reference wins a cool "no-prize" from me!!!))
thru all of the digests lately, and was taken by surprise by the
GLADSTONE anouncement that they were ceasing publication of most of
their monthly titles.
we can all second guess and criticize GLADSTONE with 20/20 hindsight,
but i do have one question thats been bugging me about newstand
distribution for a loooong time, and maybe someone with more industry
knowledge can enlighten me a bit--
why doesnt Disney authorize "digests" ala the Archie comics?
I know the Disney Adventures mag sells huge amounts, most likely because
it's in the checkout line, and a familiar name, something parents can
grab for their kids and not have to worry about content... just like all
of the archie books available in gorcery stores acorss the country. Is
there something i don't see here? I was under the impression the
Archies were pretty successful, and if so, why not a disney line of the
exact same style? (i.e. thick books with many stories, a mix of old and
new material, 4 color newsprint, and an economical price...)
Too much investment? Too little profit?? Why WOULDNT they try something
like this? I'd really be interested in knowing.
selling Disney characters in the direct market is even more pointless
for gaining new readers than it is for other superhero books (see the
newest issue of THE COMICS JOURNAL for an excellent discussion on the
failures of the direct market system...).
The reason why i think the ducks are so popular in Europe is simply that
they are available! on the newstands, ever week!! Just being out there
counts for a lot i think...Top it off that the digests give you 5 or 6
or more complete stories for your money... doesnt this seem to be more
value for your dollar that the wafer-thin, $2 comics most people are
used to?
if this has been discussed in an earlier digest, please forgive me! But
this is a question thats been bugging me for a good while.
-matt-
p.s. i havent yet gotten my copy of Don's 50th Anniv. story, but I'm
really baffled by what i've been hearing with this "intro" fiasco... Is
Blum a part of this strange "barks faction" which seems to have it in
for Don for some reason?? If so, i think we can well do without his so
called "criticisms". Are Rosa fans sensitive? Well, tell me who DOESNT
want to defend a writer/artist they particularly like? Are we blind to
certain faults? i dont think so... but you don't put your head into the
lion's mouth and "flick his love-spuds" witha wet towel, and then
complain when he bites your head off.... ((first person to get that
reference wins a cool "no-prize" from me!!!))
Don Rosa
Disney comics Digest V97 #279
Message 217 -
1997-12-23 at 07:52:24
>From: "Augie De Blieck Jr."
>In the Lo$ hardcover, his scrawling includes more factual innacuracies on
the
>first page than I care to count, including, "Even Rosa bought into this
>pattern, telling interviewers that he was the only man fit and fated to
>continue the Great Barks Tradition." There is no footnote to this and no
>source cited for this quote, although I'd love to see it.
What Blum refers to is the fact that when I first called Byron Erickson 11
years ago, I told him in mock seriousness (but only slightly) that I had
always known that I "was born to write and draw Uncle $crooge stories, and
that it (is) my Manifest Destiny". And I've been proud to repeat that to
interviewers ever since. What I said had nothing to do with any personal
opinion of my ability to do a good job at it (and you know how little I like
my own art!)... but only that I have always known it's what I would someday
do, which I'd told people all my life, even in letters I sent to Barks in
the early 70s.
Blum is one of us who is a Barks-only guy. I'm one, too, heaven knows! But
he is far too over-emotional about it. He hears a quote like that, reads his
own meaning into it (and when I mean his own meaning, I mean an encyclopedia
of extra meanings, as you can tell by how he over-analyzes the simplest
Barks story... which is his job)... and that's okay... but then he rewrites
my words and meanings and reports them in *his* interpretation, claiming the
words and meaning to be mine rather than his, alone.
For years I have had to answer for his spreading the word that I claimed
that I intended to be "the new Carl Barks", which rightfully incenses any
Barks-fan (like me). Blum lifted that line out of the context of a
conversation where I said I wanted to be the new Carl Barks in the sense of
writing and pencilling and inking *and lettering* my own stories
singlehandedly, as did Barks... but that my lettering was appaulingly bad,
so I had to settle for "just being Don Rosa". He changed the meaning of the
line from an expression of my shortcomings to the same arrogant claim as in
the other case.
When I did "Hearts of the Yukon" as a favor for Gladstone, it was
accompanied by a Blum text that I found insulting. The hardcover "Lo$" book
exists only through my personal endorsement of each copy, and I am
humiliated by seeing another misleading Blum accompanying text, even though
I was told that wouldn't happen. Then I do extra pages for the Gladstone
edition of "A Little Something Special" just to give them the world's best
version of the story because I love Gladstone... and despite another
promise, Blum is there again to actually ruin the ending of the story for
all the readers. If Blum doesn't like or resents my stories, fine, let him
tear me to shreds in some fanzine somewhere... but I'm done being humiliated
in the same magazines I thought I was striving to take time away from my
Egmont job to support. Blum is a saboteur.
Saboteur? AH! What an excellent transition! I thought we'd covered this here
before: the scene in "A Little Something Special" involving the giant
Cornelius Coot statue comes from Hitchcock's "SABOTEUR", (one of my favorite
Hitchcock movies but one that seems to be unknown!) where the hero has the
villain hanging off the Statue of Liberty by his sleeve.
>From: Cebarat
>I also thought of Harold Lloyd's "Safety Last," but my best guess is that
Don
>was paying tribute to the Mt. Rushmore scene in Hitchcock's "North by
>Northwest."
Not exactly, see above. That bit in "N by NW" wasn't Hitchcock's first
version of that scene.
> Also, the crash of the villains' train may have owed something to
>"The Greatest Show on Earth"...
Hm. Probably so.
> and (though it's not a classic movie of the
>type Don seems to enjoy) the "underground Duckburg" reminded me of the
>subterranean New York City glimpsed in "Beneath the Planet of the Apes".
Again, probably so... but the movie I specifically had in mind was not a
so-called "classic" either... I don't just like "classics", I like movies
that I like... it was a mere TV movie, a sequel to my second favorite TV
movie, entitled "The Night Strangler", where the early city of Seattle (I
believe it was) is found forgotten and preserved below the modern day
streets.
>In the Lo$ hardcover, his scrawling includes more factual innacuracies on
the
>first page than I care to count, including, "Even Rosa bought into this
>pattern, telling interviewers that he was the only man fit and fated to
>continue the Great Barks Tradition." There is no footnote to this and no
>source cited for this quote, although I'd love to see it.
What Blum refers to is the fact that when I first called Byron Erickson 11
years ago, I told him in mock seriousness (but only slightly) that I had
always known that I "was born to write and draw Uncle $crooge stories, and
that it (is) my Manifest Destiny". And I've been proud to repeat that to
interviewers ever since. What I said had nothing to do with any personal
opinion of my ability to do a good job at it (and you know how little I like
my own art!)... but only that I have always known it's what I would someday
do, which I'd told people all my life, even in letters I sent to Barks in
the early 70s.
Blum is one of us who is a Barks-only guy. I'm one, too, heaven knows! But
he is far too over-emotional about it. He hears a quote like that, reads his
own meaning into it (and when I mean his own meaning, I mean an encyclopedia
of extra meanings, as you can tell by how he over-analyzes the simplest
Barks story... which is his job)... and that's okay... but then he rewrites
my words and meanings and reports them in *his* interpretation, claiming the
words and meaning to be mine rather than his, alone.
For years I have had to answer for his spreading the word that I claimed
that I intended to be "the new Carl Barks", which rightfully incenses any
Barks-fan (like me). Blum lifted that line out of the context of a
conversation where I said I wanted to be the new Carl Barks in the sense of
writing and pencilling and inking *and lettering* my own stories
singlehandedly, as did Barks... but that my lettering was appaulingly bad,
so I had to settle for "just being Don Rosa". He changed the meaning of the
line from an expression of my shortcomings to the same arrogant claim as in
the other case.
When I did "Hearts of the Yukon" as a favor for Gladstone, it was
accompanied by a Blum text that I found insulting. The hardcover "Lo$" book
exists only through my personal endorsement of each copy, and I am
humiliated by seeing another misleading Blum accompanying text, even though
I was told that wouldn't happen. Then I do extra pages for the Gladstone
edition of "A Little Something Special" just to give them the world's best
version of the story because I love Gladstone... and despite another
promise, Blum is there again to actually ruin the ending of the story for
all the readers. If Blum doesn't like or resents my stories, fine, let him
tear me to shreds in some fanzine somewhere... but I'm done being humiliated
in the same magazines I thought I was striving to take time away from my
Egmont job to support. Blum is a saboteur.
Saboteur? AH! What an excellent transition! I thought we'd covered this here
before: the scene in "A Little Something Special" involving the giant
Cornelius Coot statue comes from Hitchcock's "SABOTEUR", (one of my favorite
Hitchcock movies but one that seems to be unknown!) where the hero has the
villain hanging off the Statue of Liberty by his sleeve.
>From: Cebarat
>I also thought of Harold Lloyd's "Safety Last," but my best guess is that
Don
>was paying tribute to the Mt. Rushmore scene in Hitchcock's "North by
>Northwest."
Not exactly, see above. That bit in "N by NW" wasn't Hitchcock's first
version of that scene.
> Also, the crash of the villains' train may have owed something to
>"The Greatest Show on Earth"...
Hm. Probably so.
> and (though it's not a classic movie of the
>type Don seems to enjoy) the "underground Duckburg" reminded me of the
>subterranean New York City glimpsed in "Beneath the Planet of the Apes".
Again, probably so... but the movie I specifically had in mind was not a
so-called "classic" either... I don't just like "classics", I like movies
that I like... it was a mere TV movie, a sequel to my second favorite TV
movie, entitled "The Night Strangler", where the early city of Seattle (I
believe it was) is found forgotten and preserved below the modern day
streets.
Rich Bellacera
Disney comics Digest V97 #280
Message 218 -
1997-12-23 at 08:12:40
ETA BETA asked:
>Why does the country that generated Disney and the Disney "universe",
>not just phisically, but culturally, rejects them now?
>Is it a matter of attitude? Changing culture?
Yes and Yes. Americans are very trendy sometimes. DD and MM and
others Disney characters are often seen as part of one's childhood and
are regarded as throwaways. As in, "When I was a child I spoke as
a child, acted, etc. But when I became a man I put away childish things..."
(from the New Testament of the Bible). This philosophy permeates
our society and many children are proned to take the initiative to jumping
ahead of their childhood an grabbing on to more violent "adult" themes,
which is why the X-Men, Spiderman, Batman, Spawn, and other comics
are more popular. Kids want to grow up too fast... it's a part of an
image that is considered "cool" and "popular." To read DD or MM would
place a child into a category of being a child... something that is not
popular... Much like being called a "baby" or a "sissy." Ironically,
it is true adults who are leading the fight to "save" Disney comics in the
USA. I have many adult friends who also read comics, but they too
believe Disney Comics are "childish." I'm afraid Disney Comics fans
in the USA are a rare and nearly extinct breed in the USA. I still feel that
if the Disney Company would lift their restrictions and censoring from
comics as they are currently published in the USA, the stories would
be more innovative and exciting.
>Are the Europeans ahead, because they are more sensible towards
>artistical expressions, or actually behind, because everything that
>happens in the States will nearly certainly happen here in another five
>years, as it usually does? (shiver...)
I think that Disney comics flourish in foreign countries because
Disney isn't overlording the writers and publishers the same as
they are in the USA. Egmont and others seem to be in
a postition to write nearly anything they want (as long as they do
not place any character in a situation which would reflect negatively
on the Disney Company in that country where the story is printed).
Thus you guys get to make stories like "Paperinik" or the new
"Junior Woodchucks," etc.
-Rich (xephyr)
http://www.jps.net/xephyr/rich/disney.html
>Why does the country that generated Disney and the Disney "universe",
>not just phisically, but culturally, rejects them now?
>Is it a matter of attitude? Changing culture?
Yes and Yes. Americans are very trendy sometimes. DD and MM and
others Disney characters are often seen as part of one's childhood and
are regarded as throwaways. As in, "When I was a child I spoke as
a child, acted, etc. But when I became a man I put away childish things..."
(from the New Testament of the Bible). This philosophy permeates
our society and many children are proned to take the initiative to jumping
ahead of their childhood an grabbing on to more violent "adult" themes,
which is why the X-Men, Spiderman, Batman, Spawn, and other comics
are more popular. Kids want to grow up too fast... it's a part of an
image that is considered "cool" and "popular." To read DD or MM would
place a child into a category of being a child... something that is not
popular... Much like being called a "baby" or a "sissy." Ironically,
it is true adults who are leading the fight to "save" Disney comics in the
USA. I have many adult friends who also read comics, but they too
believe Disney Comics are "childish." I'm afraid Disney Comics fans
in the USA are a rare and nearly extinct breed in the USA. I still feel that
if the Disney Company would lift their restrictions and censoring from
comics as they are currently published in the USA, the stories would
be more innovative and exciting.
>Are the Europeans ahead, because they are more sensible towards
>artistical expressions, or actually behind, because everything that
>happens in the States will nearly certainly happen here in another five
>years, as it usually does? (shiver...)
I think that Disney comics flourish in foreign countries because
Disney isn't overlording the writers and publishers the same as
they are in the USA. Egmont and others seem to be in
a postition to write nearly anything they want (as long as they do
not place any character in a situation which would reflect negatively
on the Disney Company in that country where the story is printed).
Thus you guys get to make stories like "Paperinik" or the new
"Junior Woodchucks," etc.
-Rich (xephyr)
http://www.jps.net/xephyr/rich/disney.html
Rich Bellacera
Hidden Mickeys & Flintheart's No.1 Rand?
Message 219 -
1997-12-23 at 09:24:08
I must agree with all of the others that, aside from the spoilers revealed by
Geoffrey (@#$%!!) Blum, "A Little Something Special" was a very very
good story! I have two questions as a result of this tale, however.
HIDDEN MICKEYS:
1) Thomas Lauritsen's "Mickey Spots" indicates there is a "hidden Mickey"
somewhere in the story. Aside from the miscellaneous non-MM mice
which appear throughout, I could not find it, and as of yet, he doesn't have
it's location revealed. Is this a case of Gladstone removing it from the
story (as in other cases)? "Hidden Mickeys" are a popular passtime in the
USA with movie-goers, video buyers, and amusement park enthusiasts. I
like Don Rosa's, albeit sick-and-twisted, own salute to this phenomenon.
Though I have yet to find one in an AMERICAN Disney comic, even when
a story which has them originates from Europe and is printed in the USA.
FLINTHEART'S "Old No. 1":
2) The story also indicates that Flintheart Glomgold has a "No.1 Rand"
which would apparently be the equivalent of $crooge's "No.1 Dime."
Has this ever been spoken of in any other story? And where can I find
the tale behind Glomgold's own "Old Number One"?
-Rich (xephyr)
http://www.jps.net/xephyr/rich/disney.html
Geoffrey (@#$%!!) Blum, "A Little Something Special" was a very very
good story! I have two questions as a result of this tale, however.
HIDDEN MICKEYS:
1) Thomas Lauritsen's "Mickey Spots" indicates there is a "hidden Mickey"
somewhere in the story. Aside from the miscellaneous non-MM mice
which appear throughout, I could not find it, and as of yet, he doesn't have
it's location revealed. Is this a case of Gladstone removing it from the
story (as in other cases)? "Hidden Mickeys" are a popular passtime in the
USA with movie-goers, video buyers, and amusement park enthusiasts. I
like Don Rosa's, albeit sick-and-twisted, own salute to this phenomenon.
Though I have yet to find one in an AMERICAN Disney comic, even when
a story which has them originates from Europe and is printed in the USA.
FLINTHEART'S "Old No. 1":
2) The story also indicates that Flintheart Glomgold has a "No.1 Rand"
which would apparently be the equivalent of $crooge's "No.1 Dime."
Has this ever been spoken of in any other story? And where can I find
the tale behind Glomgold's own "Old Number One"?
-Rich (xephyr)
http://www.jps.net/xephyr/rich/disney.html
Don Rosa
See?!
Message 220 -
1997-12-23 at 09:29:34
"...but that my lettering was appaulingly bad..."
As is my spelling!!!
("Appallingly")
As is my spelling!!!
("Appallingly")
Francois Willot
Old Scarpa stories
Message 221 -
1997-12-23 at 15:06:14
Two Mickey stories by Romano Scarpa, never published before, have been
printed in France in the last two weeks! First the classic "Il doppio
segreto di Macchia Nera", in Mickey-Parade 217, with a text introduction
by Luca Boschi. I only had two parts (out of three) from the (quite bad)
Gladstone version, and it was very interesting to read that story at
last, with Mickey trying to kill Chief O'Hara... (I'm now waiting for
"Shangri-La", to be published late in 1998).
The second story is the first MM story by Scarpa, "Topolino e le delizie
natalizie". The story was unfortunately heavily butchered, with 172
panels instead of 29x8=232 (small) panels in the original version :-(
BTW, I re-read "Paperino... anno 2001" (I TL 309-A) by Mazzanti and
Gatto. In the version I have (the "Classici" version), it seems that the
first splash panel is NOT by Gatto (it's very different than the rest of
the story). It looks like it was done by Perego. Could anyone here say
more about that? What was the original "Topolino" version?
Francois
printed in France in the last two weeks! First the classic "Il doppio
segreto di Macchia Nera", in Mickey-Parade 217, with a text introduction
by Luca Boschi. I only had two parts (out of three) from the (quite bad)
Gladstone version, and it was very interesting to read that story at
last, with Mickey trying to kill Chief O'Hara... (I'm now waiting for
"Shangri-La", to be published late in 1998).
The second story is the first MM story by Scarpa, "Topolino e le delizie
natalizie". The story was unfortunately heavily butchered, with 172
panels instead of 29x8=232 (small) panels in the original version :-(
BTW, I re-read "Paperino... anno 2001" (I TL 309-A) by Mazzanti and
Gatto. In the version I have (the "Classici" version), it seems that the
first splash panel is NOT by Gatto (it's very different than the rest of
the story). It looks like it was done by Perego. Could anyone here say
more about that? What was the original "Topolino" version?
Francois
Dave Rawson
Disney comics Digest V97 #280
Message 222 -
1997-12-23 at 17:26:53
"Donald D. Markstein" <(Email removed)>:
> Thanx for noticing the scheduling of "The New Look" --
> this is the first I'D heard of its actual upcoming publication.
> (So, how does a guy get "in the loop" to know about these
> things, as you apparently are and I'm not?)
I don't know what criteria is used, but presumably one's editor could
say?
Ota <(Email removed)>:
Thanks for the fine run-down on Brazilian comics!
--
riverrun past Eve's and Adam's from swerve of shore to bend of bay
(Email removed) -=*=- http://users.aol.com/dcrawson/home.htm
> Thanx for noticing the scheduling of "The New Look" --
> this is the first I'D heard of its actual upcoming publication.
> (So, how does a guy get "in the loop" to know about these
> things, as you apparently are and I'm not?)
I don't know what criteria is used, but presumably one's editor could
say?
Ota <(Email removed)>:
Thanks for the fine run-down on Brazilian comics!
--
riverrun past Eve's and Adam's from swerve of shore to bend of bay
(Email removed) -=*=- http://users.aol.com/dcrawson/home.htm
Arild
Xmas on Bear Mountain,
Message 223 -
1997-12-23 at 18:29:25
Claus Ola Margon Havik wrote:
>>Well, I don't have an older version to compare with, but when
>>I read the story and went from page 4 to page 5 of the story
>>I felt that the art changed, as if someone has redrawn it or
>>something. The first 4 pages seemed to be sharper or cleaner
>>than the rest of the story IMHO, is it like that in the older
>>version as well?
Vidar Svendsen wrote:
>I've checked it again. I can still not see any changes.
>I agree the art seems clearer and sharper on page 1-4 in
>the -97 edition. In the -65 edition the colouring is so bad
>that I can't see any difference in art.
Could the difference simply be that the first 4 pages are printed on another
kind of paper than the rest of the story? The first 4 pages are printed on
paper that is whiter/clearer than all the other pages, so the colors seems
sharper on these first 4 pages.
Have a Verry Merry Christmas
Arild
>>Well, I don't have an older version to compare with, but when
>>I read the story and went from page 4 to page 5 of the story
>>I felt that the art changed, as if someone has redrawn it or
>>something. The first 4 pages seemed to be sharper or cleaner
>>than the rest of the story IMHO, is it like that in the older
>>version as well?
Vidar Svendsen wrote:
>I've checked it again. I can still not see any changes.
>I agree the art seems clearer and sharper on page 1-4 in
>the -97 edition. In the -65 edition the colouring is so bad
>that I can't see any difference in art.
Could the difference simply be that the first 4 pages are printed on another
kind of paper than the rest of the story? The first 4 pages are printed on
paper that is whiter/clearer than all the other pages, so the colors seems
sharper on these first 4 pages.
Have a Verry Merry Christmas
Arild
Dave Rawson
A FUNGUS AMONG US [D96180]
Message 224 -
1997-12-23 at 19:34:33
I've a question for those who have seen my Gyro Gearloose story, A
FUNGUS AMONG US [D96180]. But first, some of my thoughts about Gyro
stories in general.
One of the great charms of the Gyro stories for me when I was a child
was the inclusion of the little helper. He never spoke. He never was
directly referred to (that I recall), nor was he ever even mentioned by
another character (that I recall). Regardless of my recollections --
faulty or not -- the little helper's story was essentially a wordless
story. Even as a child, one had to decipher what was going on, and the
great delight was growing to understand the personality, motivation and
character of Gyro's mute helper.
I submit this drew me further into the story-telling than did simple
narrative or textual devices. I *had* to be more engaged to understand.
The triumph or failure of the story-telling art was whether or not this
heavier requirement on me, the reader, was properly rewarded. I think it
always was.
So...
I thought a Gyro story would be the perfect place to design a sequence
of wordless panels which would carry forward the story. The reader would
be primed for pantomime, so to speak. No great leap here.
But...
When I recently saw the final line art for this story, every panel of
the carefully designed wordless sequence had captions inserted even
though I specifically indicated they shouldn't!
->SIGH<-
The sequence in question runs from the middle of Page 2 (after Gyro
falls asleep and only the little helper is ambulatory) through the end
of Page 3. This was recently published by Egmont in the 1997 Donald Duck
Weekly number 50.
My question: Was the story-telling unclear without the captions? If it
was unclear, where in the following was it unclear? Why?
My intention was this: Gyro and the little helper have gone to bed.
There is a streak in the sky. It catches the notice of the little helper
as it comes closer. The little helper sees an unusal object has just
plowed a deep furrow into the yard. A disoriented, amorphous creature of
a particular hue crawls out of the object. It struggles to reach Gyro's
window. It climbs inside. It approaches a fungus patch (established in
earlier dialog) of hue similar to its own. It begins to consume the
fungus. Finished, it rests in approximately the same place as the fungus
it has consumed.
In a related vein, I thought the artist -- Alferez -- did a fine job in
the creature's pictographic thought balloons of Page 4. While I believe
we clearly understand the intelligence and emotion of the creature,
there are far fewer physical cues than in the wordless sequence, yet we
have no explanatory captions inserted here. Why? If they were called for
before, it would seem they were even more necessary here?
Obviously I can query the editor (who I have not named since this is
water-under-the-bridge at this point and I'm not out to embarrass
someone of whom I am fond) and will at the appropriate occasion, but
here I thought it would both raise the issue of how comic art
story-telling is a process among many people of differing and often
unexpected sensibilities, and also I thought you folks might like the
inside skinny about this story that the general reader will never know.
Thanks to anyone who humors me with the time it takes to respond to
this!
By the way, the title is shared by an old Bob Dorough jazz tune. He's a
fine artist of long-standing, and vastly underappreciated. If you like
clever and inventive turns of phrase, gently swung melodic lines, and
hepness where others settle for hip, Dorough is your man. For reference,
comparable artists might be Dave Frishberg, Blossom Dearie or Mose
Allison.
P.S. In double-checking the spelling of his name, I found actual samples
of his recordings. Those of you with Real Audio (those who don't can
automagically download it for free) can simply click on the following to
find his work. The other artists mentioned above can be found in a
similar fashion.
http://www.musicblvd.com/cgi-bin/tw/1736882882896498_0_/mb2/live/main/all_srch.txt
--
riverrun past Eve's and Adam's from swerve of shore to bend of bay
(Email removed) -=*=- http://users.aol.com/dcrawson/home.htm
FUNGUS AMONG US [D96180]. But first, some of my thoughts about Gyro
stories in general.
One of the great charms of the Gyro stories for me when I was a child
was the inclusion of the little helper. He never spoke. He never was
directly referred to (that I recall), nor was he ever even mentioned by
another character (that I recall). Regardless of my recollections --
faulty or not -- the little helper's story was essentially a wordless
story. Even as a child, one had to decipher what was going on, and the
great delight was growing to understand the personality, motivation and
character of Gyro's mute helper.
I submit this drew me further into the story-telling than did simple
narrative or textual devices. I *had* to be more engaged to understand.
The triumph or failure of the story-telling art was whether or not this
heavier requirement on me, the reader, was properly rewarded. I think it
always was.
So...
I thought a Gyro story would be the perfect place to design a sequence
of wordless panels which would carry forward the story. The reader would
be primed for pantomime, so to speak. No great leap here.
But...
When I recently saw the final line art for this story, every panel of
the carefully designed wordless sequence had captions inserted even
though I specifically indicated they shouldn't!
->SIGH<-
The sequence in question runs from the middle of Page 2 (after Gyro
falls asleep and only the little helper is ambulatory) through the end
of Page 3. This was recently published by Egmont in the 1997 Donald Duck
Weekly number 50.
My question: Was the story-telling unclear without the captions? If it
was unclear, where in the following was it unclear? Why?
My intention was this: Gyro and the little helper have gone to bed.
There is a streak in the sky. It catches the notice of the little helper
as it comes closer. The little helper sees an unusal object has just
plowed a deep furrow into the yard. A disoriented, amorphous creature of
a particular hue crawls out of the object. It struggles to reach Gyro's
window. It climbs inside. It approaches a fungus patch (established in
earlier dialog) of hue similar to its own. It begins to consume the
fungus. Finished, it rests in approximately the same place as the fungus
it has consumed.
In a related vein, I thought the artist -- Alferez -- did a fine job in
the creature's pictographic thought balloons of Page 4. While I believe
we clearly understand the intelligence and emotion of the creature,
there are far fewer physical cues than in the wordless sequence, yet we
have no explanatory captions inserted here. Why? If they were called for
before, it would seem they were even more necessary here?
Obviously I can query the editor (who I have not named since this is
water-under-the-bridge at this point and I'm not out to embarrass
someone of whom I am fond) and will at the appropriate occasion, but
here I thought it would both raise the issue of how comic art
story-telling is a process among many people of differing and often
unexpected sensibilities, and also I thought you folks might like the
inside skinny about this story that the general reader will never know.
Thanks to anyone who humors me with the time it takes to respond to
this!
By the way, the title is shared by an old Bob Dorough jazz tune. He's a
fine artist of long-standing, and vastly underappreciated. If you like
clever and inventive turns of phrase, gently swung melodic lines, and
hepness where others settle for hip, Dorough is your man. For reference,
comparable artists might be Dave Frishberg, Blossom Dearie or Mose
Allison.
P.S. In double-checking the spelling of his name, I found actual samples
of his recordings. Those of you with Real Audio (those who don't can
automagically download it for free) can simply click on the following to
find his work. The other artists mentioned above can be found in a
similar fashion.
http://www.musicblvd.com/cgi-bin/tw/1736882882896498_0_/mb2/live/main/all_srch.txt
--
riverrun past Eve's and Adam's from swerve of shore to bend of bay
(Email removed) -=*=- http://users.aol.com/dcrawson/home.htm
Dave Rawson
Disney's CEO's Pay Rose 23 Percent in '97
Message 225 -
1997-12-23 at 20:10:30
LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - Walt Disney Co. Chairman
Michael
Eisner, who recently cashed in stock options worth
more than
$500 million, also got a 23 percent pay raise this
year.
According to a Securities and Exchange Commission
filing,
Eisner's pay rose to $10.65 million in fiscal 1997
from $8.65
million in fiscal 1996.
That excluded his recent excercise of options on
7.3 million
Disney shares -- worth a reported $565 million.
Eisner's base salary of $750,000 has not changed
since 1984. His
bonus, however, rose $2 million to $9.9 million in
the latest fiscal
year, according to the filing.
Michael
Eisner, who recently cashed in stock options worth
more than
$500 million, also got a 23 percent pay raise this
year.
According to a Securities and Exchange Commission
filing,
Eisner's pay rose to $10.65 million in fiscal 1997
from $8.65
million in fiscal 1996.
That excluded his recent excercise of options on
7.3 million
Disney shares -- worth a reported $565 million.
Eisner's base salary of $750,000 has not changed
since 1984. His
bonus, however, rose $2 million to $9.9 million in
the latest fiscal
year, according to the filing.