Keskustelujen arkisto

Thanks, Arthur.

Quote from user: zapjonesI am disappointed that Boom has not chosen to go the same route as they have done with the Pixar and Muppet books and created all new stories but perhaps they wanted some time to find the right creators to work on the books and are using the italian material so they could get the line up and running. At least, that's what I hope is happening.
Where is there any description of the story within 384? I hope there won't be a gaggle of 2 to 10-pg gag stories as in WDCS. I mean what can one do with so few pages short of chopping up a story in multiple parts?

I don't think there is an issue synopsis or content description out yet for this yet. Is there even any confirmation as to when the next Uncle Scrooge issue is expected? I thought I read September somewhere.

They don't say much about the ducks....just the kids stuff. The one lady does state that she doesn't think they're going to delve too far back into classic Barks or not.....while newer material out of Europe is possibly going to be forefront....not a bad idea....neither interview sounded very informed about the traditional characters license - just "look, we're going to hack out more expanded universe stuff with the tired franchise 'Cars'!" No problems here with the Muppets books as they are classic stuff. I wouldn't read it, but it's still classic characters, good for kids....but the Cars and Monsters INc., and Incredibles stuff......that's about as thrilling to me as a Lion King or Alladin one shot....and yes, I passed those up back in the day as a spry, young 10 year old....and headed straight for the Scrooge books. Thank you for the reading material though. I am just crossing my fingers for some good traditional Disney reading soon.

Quote from user: stavnerAll they have to do to bring back classic Barks comics is reprint them all in books. Then they can print all new stuff in the monthlies.
That's what all the other Disney publishers have been doing for years to keep the Barks/Gottfredson material fresh (and keep the reprints in general out of the way) is printing them in trades/albums/specialty reprint books. It's also the way that really makes the most sense for those that want to have their cake and eat it too, as well as leaving the core books to newly produced material as well. I don't see a single thing wrong with that.

Quote:To clarify, the preliminary cover design for Uncle Scrooge #384 looks like Whitman era concept and styling - IMO.
Gemstone consistently used those gawd awful Egmont Tello-ish style covers for what seemed like the near entirety of its regular run on Mickey Mouse and Donald Duck and no one here seemed to give a hoot about them or how ugly they looked (but me - and believe me I did let them know). IMO The Tello faux-Murry-style has often usually been garish, gaudy or just plain off model, but the point I have is - why bring this up now? Why didn't people bring it up THEN when it would have really mattered in helping Gemstone by telling them that they really should not have been using them?

Don't get me wrong - I'm not complaining to whine devil's advocate style. In fact, I think letting Boom know NOW that those types of Tello style Egmont covers aren't very well liked among most fans (it's usually the older European late 70's-early 80's mindset that tend to tolerate them) but if people didn't like them and thought that bad enough to compare them to Whitman of all things, why complain now that Boom is using them as placeholder covers at best? That strikes me as an awfully unfair double standard that Gemstone could do no wrong but Boom is wrong out the gate before they even start, y'know?

Still, while you raise a good point - zapjones nailed it on the head: Gladstone and Gemstone used gag covers to a ridiculous degree at times when the inside story could have used a cover depicting the contents inside, and even so the gag here is much better then some others that have been used.

I still fail to see the comparison. =\

One last thing - a lot of people have complained that WDC&S, DD, and MM are starting out with these long sprawling stories that take up most of the year, but US seems to be starting with more of the smaller material (probably european) that people have been used to since the 80's and people are still complaining at that? Can we wait to see what it is they've chosen first and then if we don't like it, complain about the contents. It's worked well with Gladstone, Gemstone, and especially Disney once the Len Wein Era fell on its face. I fail to see why that same tactic wouldn't work for Boom - who would probably and probably are - listening.

Quote:And, it has been stated that Boom kids comic books are aimed at....just kids. I am just putting the notion out there that it may be Uncle Scrooge, but it may be disappointing as well. I am hoping for the best though.
I think you should - but this type of thinking bothers me especially more than anything because: CARL BARKS AND FLOYD GOTTFREDSON WROTE FOR KIDS TOO. Disgruntled 30 something neckbeards and/or collectors and/or overgrown manbaby fanboys were not their primary audiences at all. Granted, the key difference here is that while they wrote for kids and knew it, they also wrote their stories in a way that adults could enjoy them tremendously and their work was multi-faceted and didn't talk down to its readership no matter how old they were. It's something that quite a few modern creators tended to get - be they from Italy, Europe, or even America. But taking the "kids" out of the equation was, IMO, the biggest problem to begin with. I think its long past due that the kids are enticed to come back and I think its good of Boom to use that as one of their primary incentives. If they discover talent that appeals to then older types too - then hey, there ya go. You might have a worth successor to the old guard who actually "gets it." Disney not Archie or Harvey Comics, nor have they never been.

But to complain because they're targeting kids when Gemstone didn't (and it subsequently wound up biting them in the booty at the end) is just silly.

Quote from user: MorequackWhere is there any description of the story within 384? I hope there won't be a gaggle of 2 to 10-pg gag stories as in WDCS. I mean what can one do with so few pages short of chopping up a story in multiple parts?
Quote from user: rodneyIn fairness, as I'm sure others will point out, Barks did plenty with 24 pages.
And to top that, some of Barks best stories were not 24 pagers, but in actuality - a slew of 10 pagers he wrote for who knows how many years. NEXT.

Quote:I am just crossing my fingers for some good traditional Disney reading soon.
I think everyone will get what they want eventually. All Boom needs is good positive feedback to know which direction they need to go. That's what happened with Gladstone, Gemstone, and especially Disney (who was REALLY good towards the end of its run). I think you should just stay positive about it.

Amongst all the other excellent points WB brings up that I wholly agree with;

Quote from user: WBGladstone and Gemstone used gag covers to a ridiculous degree at times when the inside story could have used a cover depicting the contents inside
Boy I hear that. This kind of thing used to drive me absolutely batscat-- especially when such covers existed and where thoroughly available. For example, there was no excuse for "Crown of the Crusader Kings" and "The Beagle Boys vs The Money Bin" to be published without their covers.

I knew those covers existed long before Gemstone ran the stories, and I'm just some shmoe on the internet. Why didn't they?

But that's kind of a tangent and obviously too late to rectify. My basic point is I'm not sure if people respond to the gawdy gag covers anymore. But hey, Archie hits #600 this very day, and their coloring is just as locked-in-the-90s as anything Gladstone or Gemstone put out. So who can say?

Personally, if they're gonna go down the traditional road (and I seriously hope they do somehow at some point), I'd like to see these stories colored with the same modern treatment as the other stuff on the shelves they have to compete with.

But that's just me. Heck, the coloring on the Muppet Show books isn't anything too complicated, and it works fine for that.

Maybe I'd just like to see some classic Barks stories given a whole new lush world of three dimensional color, if I'm gonna be paying for them yet again. ;)

Quote from user: Mcduck_EnterprisesThey don't say much about the ducks....just the kids stuff. [...] neither interview sounded very informed about the traditional characters license - just "look, we're going to hack out more expanded universe stuff with the tired franchise 'Cars'!"
The Ducks are kids stuff.

Also, writers and artists usually aren't well-informed about publishing plans. (I certainly know very little about what Egmont plans to publish -- or not publish.) To get details about those plans, you would need to ask the publishers themselves!

The Cars franchise debuted in 2006 with a movie and has since spawned 4-5 cartoon shorts, a handful of comic book stories and an upcoming movie sequel. And this is a "tired" franchise?! Compared to the Duck franchise from 1934 and the Mickey Mouse one from 1928?! Come on!!

And accusing BOOM! of "hacking out" material is incredibly offensive. In which ways are BOOM!'s creators hacks?

No kidding.

It's the sense of having ONE movie and riding it until everyone's tired of seeing the same old stuff. How far can you go with a concept of talking cars?.....The Incredibles = Fantastic 4, Monster Inc. is,......well, 'old' in the 'current' sense. They haven't done much with it for years. "Tired" was only a description of a current state - not how many years the theme has been out.

No one is calling BOOM hacks.....hacking is a adjective for 'pushing out' material - possibly in relation with saturation...George Lucas is great at this.....and this is more of a licensing thing anyways....."Hey, Cars, Princess and Incredibles toothbrushes sell - because that's all that is offered for kids toothbrushes so it must be in demand!"
forget it,...everyone's so sensitive.

The cover of the new Scrooge 384 looks a bit lame. That's all I thought to begin with.