Keskustelujen arkisto

Quote from user: Michiel PThe quality of Gulien's artwork varies, to say the least. He can do some pretty good ducks, but his dog people are mostly very boring and alike and their arms are invariably too short. At their worst, his drawings look clumsy and childlike, like something you might expect in your local school's paper, but certainly not in a decent comic magazine. His inking is stiff and jerky. Don't expect the new Jippes; he's more like the new Strobl.

Lately he's done a series of Beagle Boy one-pagers, which are dull, boring and ugly and that's not only because of the material he had to work with. He simply doesn't know how to create a pleasant-looking page or how to put a joke to paper.

Sander Gulien was always a bit of an ugly duckling. His artwork looked promising, but you knew he wasn't there yet. By now it has been looking promising for almost twenty years. It must be clear that he will never rise to become a swan.
It seems apparent that Sander tried to pattern himself, or, at least his style, after Daan Jippes'. In a lot of panels, his work does look like a poor-man's Jippes. But, as Michiel stated above, he also draws a lot of panels in which the characters are off model, or shabbily drawn. He definately needs to become more consistent, and be more careful to make sure that he keeps up the quality in ALL panels. He has drawn two of my stories, and done a reasonably good job on those.

I'm hoping he'll get more consistent, as I'm sure he'll draw several more of my stories, as he's one of the few main artists who draw for Dutch Disney Comics,

Quote from user: Roger NorthI wouldn't say that. I'm sure Sander Gulien is just as good a Disney Comic Artist as anyone else that is in the business.
That might depend upon the definition of a good artist, or average, better than averge and lower than average quality work. Liking someone's artwork is up to the taste of the beholder. But competence in drawing COULD be defined (by people who draw and those who know about the technical aspects of drawing.

Personally, I like Sander's style, but would like him to be a lot more consistent in keeping the quality of every panel high, and to stay on model a lot more (e.g. always).

But to say that Sander is "just as good as anyone else that is in the business" is almost meaningless, unless we know what your definition of "good" is, and in what context it is used (e.g.- what is that referring to?). I would certainly say that Sander's work is not as technically good and not as pleasing to look at as Daan Jippes', Freddy Milton's, Jan Gulbransson's (current and recent), Ben Verhagen's, Marco Rota's(especially his Italian work), Michel Nadorp's, Mau Heyman's (especially before the past several years), and Peinado's Duck work. I would also say it isn't as good as Barks' (which no one would debate), or Branca's.

But I would say that I like his work (DESPITE his inconsistancies) better than the Ducks of Murray, Dick Moores, Jules Coenan, Mark de Jonge, Xavi, Santanache, Torres, Millet (and many of the other Spanish Studio artists), Bernado, Barreira, Hubbard, Bradbury and many of the early US artists, as well.

I guess I place his work in the middle of the pack, despite his (seemingly careless) inconsistency. I know he's capable of drawing stories well, if he'd just take care to make sure each panel is high quality. But, perhaps he draws hastily, to finish a lot more work than he could otherwise (and thus, make more money). We all have to balance quality with ability to earn a living. That is why the 10-page Donald stories of the team of Daan Jippes and Freddy Milton from 1975-1981 are so remarkably good (because they took a lot of extra care and time to make sure the quality of every panel and the stories as a whole was excellent).

The one or two Sander Gulien stories that have been printed in the states haven't really impressed me all that much to be honest. They don't really look like anything that I haven't seen before. When I first saw his work I kind of got that feeling of "someone who is trying to channel Daan Jippes but not quite completely getting it." I do agree though that there does look to be much potential in the few things that I have seen and I'd love to see what he could do given more time to properly hone his craft and find a style, feel, and look that is truly "his".
Speaking of which I have been one of those few people that has loved William Van Horn's work progress into what it is now. He has an unrestrained zaniness about his artwork that I just don't think any artists - maybe Cavazzano in that "italian zaniness" perhaps - have yet to match. Whereas Don Rosa is stiff and technical in his style and Carl Barks is something akin to the Will Eisner of the duck world - William Van Horn is one of those few artists whom you can instantly look at and know his work from every other Disney comics artist out there and I have MAD respect for that. I love the fact that his his art is rubbery and lively and full of movement and he doesn't try or go out of his way to be the millionth clone replica of Carl Barks. His stuff just sort of happens.
Yes his earliest work wasn't all that great but there was so much potential that was actually realized and I think that part of the charm of reading his work stateside was watching improve and seeing him learn from his mistakes with each passing story. You can tell in his art that he really loves what he does and I'm glad that the American editors gave him a chance to really improve and hone his style. I honestly don't think that he would have had that opportunity had he started at Egmont from the get-go. =\
The other thing that someone else mentioned are his stories. While I love Don Rosa's work, sometimes I wonder if he takes his stuff too seriously nowadays. I love the sequels and long sweeping sagas but on occasion I miss the smaller fluff piece comedy stuff like The Master Landscapist and Incident at McDuck Tower - two personal favorite stories of his that had me in tears from laughter as a little boy. Whereas by comparison, Van Horn tries to go for the simple belly laughs a lot more frequently so that when he does dedicate his time to do a longer story, it's a real treat.

I love Bill's work. I really hope it gets some TPB treatment someday, as I've missed out on a LOT of it in the last few years.

Quote from user: MilanoI would really love to get the WVH library if Gemstone or Egmont try to publish that treasure someday.
I'd get that for sure (if they'd print an English or Dutch version). Not so sure I'd want a Danish or German one if Egmont is the only publisher, as I get all his stories in Gladstone/Disney Gemstone and the Dutch Donald Duck Extras.

Milano, where in Deutschland are you located?

Quote from user: MilanoQuote from user: Robb_KMilano, where in Deutschland are you located?
I´m living in Herne, Ruhr area.
Yes, I know well where Herne is. I often visit friends in Kempen (near Krefeld). In fact, I was staying there just a week ago. One of the people I stay with works in your town.

Quote from user: Roger NorthI think it would be cool to see a William Van Horn Libary in Color too. Of Course He hasn't retired so it won't be entirely complete.
They'll probably wait until he retires. He's around Rosa's age, so, he might well retire within the next 10 years, or so. Coudn't you wait that long?

Bill has drawn 1482 pages with Disney comics and 122 Disney covers. Currently he is at the work with two new tales.
Every book of a William Van Horn Library should contain about 200 pages. Gemstone or Egmont could start to publish this library with two books per year. But they have to wait with the last issue until Bill has retired.