Keskustelujen arkisto

Quote from user: Nefariousdo oyu knwo any links to any scanned issues of any foreign titles, by any chane???
(Besides InDucks, of course, preferably full issus)
Nope. It's probably not a good idea to post links to illegal scans, anyway.

@Nefarious: Nope. I don't go digging for scans, but I Googled "Darkwing Duck comics" and got those sites that just happened to have scans of old Disney Adventures pages.
@Lars Jensen: Disney seems to turn a blind eye to comic scans being hosted online, for whatever reason. There's one very large "fan page" out there that hosts complete scans of practically every Barks, Rosa and Gottfredson story. They've been around for years, and even posted scans of recent Gemstone pages. I'm pretty sure Gemstone/Disney were made aware of them, yet they're still online. If it were Marvel or DC Comics, they would've been shut down and sued by now. Go figure...
@quackpack: I wouldn't disagree with that. The closest the classic characters got a to a proper "comeback" in animated form was "The Three Musketeers." But it, like the Christmas movies before it, focused on the "whole gang" and not just the Ducks. Unless you count "Mickey Mouse Clubhouse" which pretty much cemented the reputation of Mickey, Donald and the gang as "kid's stuff." :(
I hate to say it, but I really don't think there's much of a demand for any new animation featuring Scrooge & Co. over here in the States. Today's Disney seems much more focused on creating new properties... and Pixar... and preferably, new properties by Pixar. And Hannah Montana. Further Duck adventures seem to be relegated to comic books, and that's probably the way it'll stay for quite some time.

Quote from user: KneonAnd Mousercise. But... we just don't talk about that... ;)
You only missed that for the cute girls in excersize outfits. Don't play. :)

I think people are missing one key element here. It's not just the ducks and mice getting the short shaft. Looking at it in such a way as that is - quite frankly - a bit narrow minded on the breadth of the problem.

What it really boils down to is funny animals in general that seem to be experiencing a downtime in popularity amongst executive types. That tis NOT to say that they are ignored or on pariah status, it just means that all the major studios - while not pushing them under the rug - don't (or won't) do much with the properties that pertain with them. If Disney REALLy didn't care about the ducks and mice - House of Mouse would probably have never happened to begin with (and surprisingly, Boom probably wouldnt have gotten the license so quickly after Gemstone's unfortunate way of collapsing in on itself, but I digress).

Think about it for a second:

The Looney Tunes are gone and for a while their comic was about to go into all reprint mode. Where's Woody Woodpecker? Tom and Jerry is still going strong (even getting a new series) but that's only because CN doesnt have to fight with Time Warner about that one. Disney movies nowadays don't really concentrate too heavily on thier animal casts foregoing them in thier movies for human casts of characters with funny animals on the side. Kneon is probably right in what Disney wants to do as far as new properties, but to say that the characters are going to be flat out retired seems to veer on the side of "just plain wrong". If that was the case we wouldn't have Kingdom Hearts, Warren Spector's rather intriguing "Epic Mickey" videogame project, Mickey Mouse's Clubhouse (which is where Disney finally realized that the classic character brand is still popular even if its not in our own age demographic and approach, and yet again (even though its time has long passed) - House of Mouse.

The classic characters are the perfect examples of an evergreen property. They may not be as widely relevent as they once were, but they aren't going away anytime soon for sure.

I still see an abundance of mouse and duck licensing in stores......just last month, shopping at Target, I picked up these cool Donald Duck dried fruit snacks with Barks comic strips on each individual box. I got them ideally for my son to enjoy in his lunch...They also had Mouse ones too. While Disney is not currently focusing animation on their funny animal characters, the characters still play an important part of the Disney image, and I seem to think they always will. Newer properties will always rise and fall, but Donald and the gang have been around for 70-some years....and for me to be able to show my 8 year old a 70-year-old Donald Duck cartoon and he loves it the same, if not more than the new flash-in-the-pan animated movies, is very special and Disney knows that. That's why they release and re-release stuff all of the time.

I'm sorry to hear that Argonaut.

I *love* Boomerang. And so does my 6-year-old. For a time, we watched that more than Cartoon Network (which is, oddly enough, adding more and more live-action shows to its lineup... why?)
Boomerang is essentially what Cartoon Network was at its launch. What Disney needs is something similar that is a throwback to Disney Channel's roots.

Quote from user: Nefariousthat owuld be totally awesome
by the way do you have to pay exta for Boomerang or is it included in the normal deal?

(Like for example, our cable provideer, Boomerang is apparently on another 'tier' level then regular cable, so you have to pay extra for it even though yo get a bunch of extra channels but Boomerang's the only one I'd even want, hope this makes sense)
I think it's extra with some cable providers, but we have DirectTV and its included in our package. There are packages out there with fewer channels that don't include Boomerang, but ours has all the kid's channels (including Noggin, Sprout, etc.)