Keskustelujen arkisto

Quote from user: Alexander KnoxIt seems to me that Schulz's family is not continuing the newspaper strip according to his wishes, but they're not shy about licensing the characters for other purposes.
And even though they're not continuing it in the sense that they're making new strips, they've been reprinting it in the papers since, well, Schultz's last strip. Someone living under a rock for the last ten years might not have even noticed Schultz died.

It would be cool to see a Roger Rabbit comic book but I wouldn't put too much effort into hoping for one at this point. I don't think they have the license to publish Roger Rabbit besides he's not as popular as he was in the late 80's and early 90's.

Quote from user: GeoXI think the operative objection is that all these titles Boom is introducing are based on Disney Afternoon cartoons, which Roger Rabbit was not.
I understand that Roger Rabbit would be trickier than any other properties we've discussed, since the characters are not wholly Disney-owned (the last I heard Amblin co-owned them, although I'm not sure if that's still the case). How hard would it be for Boom to get the Roger Rabbit license? They have acquired several non-Disney properties recently, most notably Peanuts. I would wholeheartedly support any Roger book they put out.

However, the whole "separate licenses" issue seems confusing and very limiting to both a publisher like Boom who knows what they're doing and has great plans, and fans who just want to see these books again, being made by artists who get the characters. Back in the early nineties, when Disney put out their own comics, they had Roger, Darkwing, Mickey, Scrooge and TaleSpin in the same line. When they closed up, Gladstone got what was considered the "classic" line, which I took to mean stories featuring characters from the old movies and old cartoon shorts, but not the then-recent television shows that comprised the Disney Afternoon, or recent movies like Roger Rabbit or Pocahontas. The latter, "modern" license went to Marvel and was short lived. I think it was the first time a distinction between Disney properties was made like that, and I always thought that was because Gladstone wasn't interested in the "modern" license (although I could be wrong). Now, however, things seem to be different; Boom can produce books based on certain portions of the classic line and what was formerly considered the modern line (the Disney Afternoon), but not TaleSpin because it features characters from the Jungle Book? But wouldn't Jungle Book be considered part of the "classic" license, that Boom already has?

If not, then did Boom really have the right to publish "70th Heaven", which featured characters from several old Disney movies?

I guess Disney is planning to give the movies part of the "classic license" to Marvel, whom they now own, and that's where any new Roger Rabbit book might come from as well.

I think you are exaggerating. I don't think they are going to have any Marvel Disney crossovers. At least not any time soon. The Classic Disney Characters at least the ones from the Mickey Mouse and Donald Duck Universes are licensed from Boom Studios. As long as they have the license you have nothing to worry about on that end.

Quote from user: MrClevelandI just hope that there's a Disney Comic Strip Book, like what they did with the Peanuts Comics.
There is! Take a look at this: http://dcf.outducks.org/viewtopic.php?id=722