Keskustelujen arkisto

Some of Disney's comics were actually very good. But one has to think about the disadvantages:

?¢ Gladstone I's MICKEY MOUSE was replaced entirely by MICKEY MOUSE ADVENTURES. Good as the latter sometimes was, it failed as a substitute for the former: Gottfredson and Scarpa, inarguably the greatest Mickey creators ever, simply vanished from the market??and there was even a rule that their work couldn't appear in the new book, for fear that they looked too old-fashioned. What... and Paul Murry and Dick Moores stories didn't?
Gottfredson was later brought back in WALT DISNEY'S COMICS AND STORIES, but it was too little, too late. Can you imagine Duck titles banning Carl Barks and Daan Jippes?

?¢ Of course, the Duck titles weren't unscathed. There was a rule here, too: that while no creators were entirely banned, in the name of consistency, a small number of creators be kept on each title at the exclusion of everyone else.
This had the same net effect as a ban. It meant that William Van Horn and especially Vicar pushed Branca, Jippes, and Milton completely out of the Donald and Scrooge books for a long time??and the Jaime Diaz studio artists pushed Van Horn out of DuckTales. It didn't matter how good the featured creators were; the exclusion of others was frustrating.

Bob Foster tried to turn this around when he replaced Len Wein as Editor-In-Chief, and a stretch of excellent books was the result. But living with Wein's decisions for nearly two years was agonizing for Gladstone I readers.

Cosme Quartieri never did any Mickey Mouse work Rob. He only did the Ducktales serials, maybe 1 or 2 general Scrooge stories that saw print here and a few random Disney Afternoon stuffs in DA, but never any Mickey Mouse at all.
I do agree with you however that their story selection was terrible. I never became a fan of Vicar until Gladstone Series II (from what I understand, a lot of people were like that) and tended to associate him with terrible European stories thanks in part due to many of the things that Disney chose to print - which were either very bland or very lackluster.
The saddest part was Mickey though. Just when Mickey was really coming back into his own via the comic books again through Gladstone I's book, the Disney version of Mickey Mouse practically destroyed everything that Gladstone had taken much of the 80's to dispel when it came to good Mickey material. Of the new Disney Mickey stories commisioned under them there's maybe 2 or 3 really very good ones and the rest are just way too "not quite Mickey" to really appreciate. Too superhero-ish. And all because Len Wein had an inane distate for Gottfredson and Scarpa and refused to use good foriegn material. :(
Going back to what David mentioned before - I seem to remember that the only reason Barks was put back into the regular rotation on the duck books so early on was pretty much fan uproar at him not being used. Early Disney was really a terrible mess and while the Bob Foster/David Seidman era was much better it really was too little/too late. The only good things that came out of the pre-implosion period were probably more varied uses of the DA characters, but the ducks suffered and the mice were really hit hard... :(

Some of the stories were good Roger, but a lot of them had many issues with them. Marv Wolfman's Mickey stories in particular.
I maintain the opinion however that the Phantom Blot story was one of the best modern Mickey stories to come along in years and i stick to that assesment.

I never read MM. I only read Ducks. And I thought the stories and artwork of Disney and Gladstone were more or less equal, with the cover art and the printing quality of the Disneys generally better.