Keskustelujen arkisto

Frank:

> Try this:
>
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=ISO-8859-1&q=donald%27s+sister+
&meta=group%3Dfa.disney-comics
> I'm too lazy to look through all the messages. ;-)

Thanks! I searched a bit...but I found no message that goes to the point or
gives a "definitive" answer...
But I understand that the matter is over-dealt, so... no matter! :)

Mickey

D van E wrote:

> So, that's why I'm thinking of the (retorical) question: Why ruin the warm
> all-age escapist entertainment of a real existant Uncle Donald, in
> exchange
> for some credits under each adventure, telling on which drawing-board the
> particular character's adventure in fact was created, and when?

<<< snip >>>

> Maybe it would be nice to mention an (Inducks?) internet URL in the Dutch
> comics, which the average readers just can ignore, like all the other
> editorial stuff at the bottom of the letters page.

AND I RESPOND:

Is it necessary to assume that everyone has Internet access so that credit
can be given where credit is due, rather than simply state creator indicia
on a separate page? If kids choose not distinguish between fantasy and
reality I doubt a list of credits elsewhere in the book is going to shake
that attitude. Meanwhile, people who have worked hard to entertain kids (as
opposed to actually lying to them about what is real and what is not)
wouldn't have to hope that readers visit every web site that's advertised
for recognition of their efforts.

DANIEL CONTINUES:

> I like that approach. As a Disney comics reader, I want to believe in a
> "real" Duckburg, existing in a unknown place somewhere on this planet.
> No matter how much Duckburg changes in every other story.

That's an interesting opinion, and I grant your right to express it and
believe it. But I wonder how many children genuinely feel that way. I
constantly hear adults say that they are only thinking of the kids, but I
have always found that attitude condescending and not entirely honest.

I have no trouble involving myself in a movie, TV show, book or comic for a
period of time even at the age of 51. Knowing that the films or written
media did not create themselves does not deny me the joy of a well-told tale
or the rush of emotion that goes with fully realized characters. And as a
youth I reveled in learning who made some of my favorite stories seem so
real.

I think of all the years I wondered who was drawing and writing the good
Duck stories. I would not know the name of Carl Barks for many, many years.
I never believed in Santa Claus or the Tooth Fairy, but I've known plenty of
adults with no imagination who grew up with the idea that such myths were
not myths at all. Does that mean if we tell our kids that the Easter Bunny
is real we will stunt their creative potential? Of course not. But I don't
believe the opposite to be true either. Revealing the truth that comics are
the product of hard work by intelligent people is probably not going to
spoil good stories for Dutch kids any more than it does for Americans.

Myth: The American comic book was 64-pages, all-in-color-for-a-dime for
generations.

Fact: From the mid-1930s into the early 1960s the standard American
comic book cover price was - with few exceptions - a dime. However, the
page count had shrunk from 64 to 32 interior pages, along with some
shrinking of the physical dimensions and the inclusion by many
publishers of outside ads and in-house promotions. In effect, the price
of an American comic book more than doubled in this period.

The early 1960s then saw the cover price of the standard American comic
book - now fixed at 32 interior pages - go to twelve cents. In the late
1960s that price took another jump, to fifteen cents. By 1972 the cover
price had reached twenty cents. This became a veritable trend, and
through the 1970s the cover price hiked up fairly regularly by
five-cent increments until it hit fifty cents in 1980 - a specific
move by DC that was eventually emulated by all other publishers. So, in
roughly the same span of time it took comics to go from 64 to 32 pages
for a dime, a book of 32 pages had gone from a dime to fifty cents - or
five dimes. Did the American comic book reader get anything for this
quintupling of cover price? Not really - even the resultant
establishment of from 20 to 22 pages of story per book was only the
restoration of the page count that stood from the 1960s through the
early 1970s, but had shrunk to 17 by the late 1970s. (I speak
specifically of the pages counts of the super-hero books issued by DC
and Marvel, which by that time overwhelmingly dominated the American
comics market.)

This second period was my time of suffering over price increases. From
a dime to twelve cents was a twenty-percent price hike, from twelve to
fifteen a twenty-five percent price hike, from fifteen to twenty a
thirty-three (and a third) percent price hike! A doubling of cover
price by these ghastly proportional increments in less than a decade!
This was bad, foks, this was very, very bad...and just kept getting
worse, as it only took the following eight years to more than double
again!

And this was back when I didn't understand all the reasons for price
increases, be they sound or stupid, or that whether a reason was sound
or stupid had little bearing on its contribution to what would always
prove inevitable.

The upshot is, three dollars (rounding off today's range) is a
ridiculous price to pay for a comic book - but not one whit more
ridiculous that it was to pay fifty cents back in 1980, or seventy-five
cents in 1986, or ninety-five cents in 1989, or a buck-fifty by 1993,
or a buck-ninety-five by 1995. The truth is, it's been almost ten years
since the nearly two-dollar comic reared its ugly head, but in that
time the cover price has only increased by half - one of the lowest
rates of increase since the early 1960s!

Yeah, it takes an old codger like me to go on like this, but that's the
perspective an old codger like me acquires. I'll certainly reflect
fondly back on "The Good Old Days," but that sort of thing is always
leavened by reviewing things like this on occasion and amending that
reflection to "The Good Old Days - They Were Terrible!"

Gary

> Myth: The American comic book was 64-pages, all-in-color-for-a-dime for
> generations.
>
> Fact: From the mid-1930s into the early 1960s the standard American
> comic book cover price was - with few exceptions - a dime. However, the
> page count had shrunk from 64 to 32 interior pages, along with some
> shrinking of the physical dimensions and the inclusion by many
> publishers of outside ads and in-house promotions. In effect, the price
> of an American comic book more than doubled in this period.
>
> The early 1960s then saw the cover price of the standard American comic
> book - now fixed at 32 interior pages - go to twelve cents. In the late
> 1960s that price took another jump, to fifteen cents.

Wow. This is a fascinating post. I just want to add a small article from
Wizard Special: The Beginning of The VALIANT Era that adds further
information to that period of time. This magazine was devoted to Magnus,
Robot Fighter, Solar, Man of the Atom, Turok, Son of Stone, etc. but the
introduction dealt with "The History of VALIANT: From the Dell years to
today". It states:
-----------------------------------------------------------
After over twenty years of riding high on the success of its licensed
properties, Dell got a bit overconfident, and in 1961, became the first
comic book publisher to raise the price of its regular titles above 10
cents. While Dell comics now carried a 15-cent tag, most other publishers
managed to hold off price increases for another few months, and when they
did raise their cover prices, they went no further than 12 cents. Dell's
circulation plummeted overnight.

As a result of this fiasco, Dell decided its best course of action was to
forego the costly licenses, and rely exclusively on in-house productions. At
this point, Western determined that this was an unwise course of action, and
in 1961, the company decided it could handle things better than its
contractor could. The company terminated its relationship with Dell, and
started publishing comics on its own. Western took over Dell's most
expensive (and lucrative) licenses, including the valuable Disney license,
as well as high-profile TV licenses such as The Lone Ranger.

As Gold Key, Western was able to find its niche during the '60s, using a mix
of its high-profile licenses, such as Star Trek, Disney, and Tarzan,
alongside its own home-grown characters, such as Magnus, Turok, and Doctor
Solar.
----------------------------------------------------------------
By the way, if anyone is interested in learning more about these classic
superheroes, I highly recommend reading Solar, Man of the Atom #0 at
http://members.fortunecity.com/ao4/ccenter/introduction.html
followed by Rai #0 which can be found at
http://www.valiantcomics.com/valiant/rai0.asp

Kintoun

DON ROSA, 13-06-2004:

> I'm a bit perplexed by this idea that credits are not given in Disney
> comics because the editors want to help the kiddies maintain the
> charming idea that Donald Duck is a living being. Let's ignore the fact
> that, even if Donald *was* a living & breathing creature, the child can
> still plainly see that these are *drawings* of Donald Duck, not films
> or photographs. But let's ignore that...

Indeed. All that's really important is that the comics are made by Disney,
just like Windows is created by Microsoft, and E.T. by Steven Spielberg,
etc.

Only few people care for credits when consuming products of big companies.
Have many people do carefully read the credits after a movie is over? How
many people do carefully read the detailed credits of a software programme?
Only freaks do.

Donald Duck is a DISNEY product, owned by DISNEY. People can plainly see
that his adventures are in fact creations by different employees. But why
would they care? Most people tend to yawn when they read such credits.

That's the risk of working and creating under an existant company, using
its product lines and marketing strategies. Barks is credited for creating
Scrooge, but he NEVER had to PROMOTE Scrooge. That's what Disney did. Barks
created Scrooge, but DISNEY made Scrooge popular.

Of course, Scrooge also became populair because of being a great creation.
But there are many, MANY other great - or even better - creations on this
planet, unseen and forgotten, simply because no one knew how to SELL them.

And whenever Barks stepped out of the Disney path, his output became less
popular. So, apparently, even the biggest freaks limit themselves to care
only for Disney. How many people have read Barks's non-Disney stories?
Have many people have really cared to even look for them?

> What child of even the earliest reading age (7? 8?) thinks Donald Duck
> and Mickey Mouse are actual living creatures?

There are even ADULTS who tend to think that Donald Duck and Mickey Mouse
are actual living creatures, copmplete with life-story, family tree and
traumas.

> And... why are the full credits placed on every *other* children's book
> ever published, even books about Santa and the Easter Bunny, for every
> single reader, child or adult, to see?

Full credits placed on every *other* children's book ever published? This
is not true.

--- Dani?l

"For goodness, sake! Who's that guy - the PIED PIPER?"
(Which Barks story?) :-)

hint #1: It's NOT the unfinished Gyro story 'The Pied Piper of Duckburg'.
hint #2: "Hold on, boys! I had no idea it was THAT tasty!"
hint #3: "Look at the mice go for that cheese!"
hint #4: "Into the toolbox with you, young fellow! You cause too much
MISCHIEF!"

Thom Roep quote via Martijn Houwen:
"We don't put it in it, because it hasn't much sense. We

sell some 340,000 copies of the magazine. 2.3 million

people read it. How many should be interested? 200?

300? The readers know that it isn?t Walt Disney who

makes them, but it doesn?t interest them who it well

does. And the real fans can see who it made.?

Now me:

Mr. Roep seems to come off a little short-sighted. Toddlers, kids, and
living-breathing fantasies aside, publishers can build followings with
"names". Image Comics would've never gotten off the ground or become
the big-time publisher it is if it weren't for "names" like Jim Lee and
Todd Mc Farlane. Why do people care? Because of their work back in
their Marvel Comics days. Creators with a great deal of talent begin
to build up name recognition over the years as well as loyal fans. (I
stress the word "loyal".) Artists and writers with enough fame and
credibility attached to them could instantly bring attention and sells
(money) to whatever project/title he/she works on.

Maybe only 200 to 300 Dutch readers care about who makes the comics.
Why not double or triple that number? Give readers more of a reason to
care with names like Don Rosa, Carl Barks, or William Van Horn? I
myself am a loyal Disney fan, but I'd be more inclined to purchase a
title that has work by someone I enjoy and respect than an unknown.
Maybe Dutch editors could get more copies sold among those 2.3 million
readers. I'm sure there are quite a few talented Dutch writers and
artists that could be built up into stars and could through their own
merits, build a solid fan base that will buy week after week, month
after month because of their names and the credibility attached to them.

Disney editors in Europe are quite lucky because they don't have to
deal with the stigma of "Disney Comics are only for kids" that those in
the US (or North America if we include Canada) have to struggle with.
Star-Trek fans have more respect that adults who read Disney Comics.
Adult comic fans are expect to graduate up to the super-hero books,
then (for those of us hormonally challenged :P) XXX comics. Then again,
in mainstream society, you're expected to be shed of comic books by
high school. It's frustrating some of the reactions I get just
mentioning comic books, let alone any Disney material. It's not like
I'm even obsessive or anything. (Or I don't think I am.) But it's not
easy mentioning comic books in everyday conversation unless it involves
a movie.

The bottom-line is that credits/names have value too and can be used
to a publisher's advantage. Hell, I'd think it only help if Disney
finally broke down these barriers and not only encourage publishers to
credit those that put in the hard work in every Disney comic, but even
let them sign their own work. I don't seriously think anyone would be
turned off by a signature other than Walt Disney's on a Disney comic
book.

That's my two-cents,

Chris

Posted by Kintoun, relaying an item in Wizard Special: The Beginning of
The VALIANT Era:

> After over twenty years of riding high on the success of its licensed
> properties, Dell got a bit overconfident, and in 1961, became the first
> comic book publisher to raise the price of its regular titles above 10
> cents. While Dell comics now carried a 15-cent tag, most other
> publishers
> managed to hold off price increases for another few months, and when
> they
> did raise their cover prices, they went no further than 12 cents.
> Dell's
> circulation plummeted overnight.
>
> As a result of this fiasco, Dell decided its best course of action was
> to
> forego the costly licenses, and rely exclusively on in-house
> productions. At
> this point, Western determined that this was an unwise course of
> action, and
> in 1961, the company decided it could handle things better than its
> contractor could. The company terminated its relationship with Dell,
> and
> started publishing comics on its own. Western took over Dell's most
> expensive (and lucrative) licenses, including the valuable Disney
> license,
> as well as high-profile TV licenses such as The Lone Ranger.
>
> As Gold Key, Western was able to find its niche during the '60s, using
> a mix
> of its high-profile licenses, such as Star Trek, Disney, and Tarzan,
> alongside its own home-grown characters, such as Magnus, Turok, and
> Doctor
> Solar.

Clarification: Dell was the distributor, not the publisher, of the
Disney comics. The license for publishing Disney comics was always held
by KK Publications - also known as Western.

Dell was in serious financial straits by the late 1950s, and this is
mainly what drove KK Publications to raise cover prices to fifteen
cents. By then the writing was on the wall for some kind of price hike
by every publisher in the business, and KK reasoned that, as their
books were practically wall-to-wall comics, theirs was a better value
at fifteen cents than those of other publishers, which featured lots of
ads, at ten or twelve cents.

Sound reasoning as far as it went, but all readers saw was that
nickel-per-copy price increase (a whopping fifty-percent!) and did not
react well to it. Push came to shove, and by 1962 KK Publications bid
adieu to Dell and began distribution of the comics themselves, under
their own Gold Key imprint. (Whitman was KK's publishing arm for
children's books, for which KK had always handled distribution.) They
also adopted the "industry standard" cover price of twelve cents,
though that necessitated reducing the story content in favor of
in-house promotion and activity pages.

It should be noted that, during the 1970s, Gold Key's line shrank to
little more than licensed properties, including the Disneys - all of
their in-house titles, such as Magnus and Turok, died off. (The Gold
Key imprint was also retired and replaced by Whitman.) Much later,
Valiant made a valiant effort to revive many of these, but were unable
to make a lasting success of it.

Gary

In a message dated 6/14/2004 10:37:00 AM Pacific Standard Time,
dcml-request at stp.ling.uu.se writes:

From: "Daniel van Eijmeren" <dve at kabelfoon.nl>
Subject: Credits

Have many people do carefully read the credits after a movie is over?
Granted, the general public probably pays little attention to the production
credits at the end of a movie, but how many went to see the movie in the first
place because it starred Leonardo DiCaprio, Tom Hanks, Nicole Kidman or Cary
Grant? How many go to a movie because it was written by a particular
screenwriter or directed by a particular director?

RE: The Thom Roep quote elsewhere:
"The readers know that it isn?t Walt Disney who makes them, but it doesn?t
interest them who it well does. And the real fans can see who made it .?

How could fans know who made it if there's never a name on it? If someone new
comes along and does some good work, I like to know who it is. In a sense,
these are the equivalent of screenwriters, actors and directors of a movie. I
think at some point such information should be available to those who do want to
know. I don't advocate plastering credits all over the splash panels like
some publishers do, but having the information available to those interested is
nice. I prefer somewhere else in the comic, like on the editor's page or letter
page.