Keskustelujen arkisto

Quote from user: rodneyAm I the only one who sees these dwindling numbers as a sign that Boom's modern approach is not working?
I wouldn't say that. Sales dwindled at the same velocity (if not more severely) when publishers like Gemstone had Barks-reprint-centric books.

And I think it's unfair to label these self-parody/spinoff stories as a "modern approach." It's more like a "Loonatics" approach. :P I have yet to see any publisher from the past two decades actually try a campaign centered around a modern-day approach to Barks/Gottfredson-type storytelling with these characters.

Ironically, the DuckTales cartoon series was wildly successful *because* they took such a modern approach. Yet instead of making the same back-to-basics update they were so successful with, we just get reprints of the DuckTales comics that were birthed in that era. (Which isn't really any different than reprinting Barks stories.)

Concepts like "Mickey Mouse as Spider-Man" and "Donald Duck as James Bond" take the easy way out. And that would actually be okay... if they were sideline/filler stories. But using them as the main attraction pretty much means you either don't understand the characters, or you don't care enough to put in the time/money/energy required to develop the stories that captured kids' imaginations on the 50s (Barks) and the 90s (DuckTales).

And we did it at Gemstone, too (we're the ones who ran the Spider-Mouse stories, y'know), so it's not like I'm just criticizing BOOM! here. ;)

The big, ugly elephant in the room is that no publisher actually thinks there's sufficient consumer interest in these characters. Yes, there's nostalgia; yes, there's brand recognition; but they don't think anyone cares about Donald Duck as Donald Duck. And the problem is that this thinking leads to publishing decisions that only serve to confirm their presumptions. We need a U.S. publisher who sees a viable demographic among 6-12 year olds... and is willing to put their best writers and artists to work on stories that are both true to the characters and engaging to the target demo. I really thought BOOM! was that publisher, but what they've done in the past year has begun to convince me otherwise. :/

Quote from user: travisseitlerQuote from user: rodneyAm I the only one who sees these dwindling numbers as a sign that Boom's modern approach is not working?
I wouldn't say that. Sales dwindled at the same velocity (if not more severely) when publishers like Gemstone had Barks-reprint-centric books.
Yeah, if you check some of the Gemstone figures in the first post, you'll see that their books started at around 7,000 to 8,000 issues a month, and gradually dropped off to about where Boom's books are now.

Quote from user: travisseitlerAnd I think it's unfair to label these self-parody/spinoff stories as a "modern approach." It's more like a "Loonatics" approach. :P I have yet to see any publisher from the past two decades actually try a campaign centered around a modern-day approach to Barks/Gottfredson-type storytelling with these characters.

Ironically, the DuckTales cartoon series was wildly successful *because* they took such a modern approach. Yet instead of making the same back-to-basics update they were so successful with, we just get reprints of the DuckTales comics that were birthed in that era. (Which isn't really any different than reprinting Barks stories.)
I would completely agree with that. My "dream project" would have been to have a hand in "rebooting" the Scrooge McDuck/Darkwing Duck universe for today's kids. I applaud Boom for taking a chance on Darkwing and DuckTales after all these years, but again we're looking at targeting nostalgia... this time the Gen Xers instead of Boomers. I have to wonder how many kids will be completely lost with a comic book sequel to a 20 year old cartoon show that's been off the air since before most of them were born. But again, I don't think kids are really the target audience here -- it's nostalgic adults.

(Gosh, just imagine today's political/economic landscape, ripe for biting satire with a modern day interpretation of Scrooge. To make some of today's complex issues understandable to children and at the same time make it all ENTERTAINING for kids and adults alike... that would be an awesome read.)

Quote from user: travisseitlerThe big, ugly elephant in the room is that no publisher actually thinks there's sufficient consumer interest in these characters. Yes, there's nostalgia; yes, there's brand recognition; but they don't think anyone cares about Donald Duck as Donald Duck. And the problem is that this thinking leads to publishing decisions that only serve to confirm their presumptions.
I've never been a fan of Mickay-as-Whatever-Character-Other-Than-Mickey stories. But I really have to wonder how many creators really "get" those characters these days? I posted my thoughts on Mickey in another thread (which has since been pulled, apparently):

Quote from user: In another thread that went mysteriously missing, KneonDon't misunderstand me, there have been some *excellent* comic stories told with Mickey Mouse over the years. But honestly, my feeling is that many of those stories could have substituted any character for Mickey Mouse without hurting the story much at all. Scarpa was a phenomenal storyteller, and still would have been had he used Mickey Mouse or not. He just wouldn't have been as famous. ;)

Let me elaborate a bit...

As a character, Mickey Mouse is like... chicken. Chicken by itself is pretty bland, but you can come up with some truly *wonderful* recipes if you use the right ingredients to bring out its flavor.

Mickey Mouse stories generally aren't character driven... they're driven by events *happening to* an otherwise generic everyman character. Or Mickey is simply plopped into a genre, like a detective comic, sci-fi story, fantasy story, etc. etc. Honestly, you can often take the Mouse out of the story, replace him with some other character, and the story would probably be just as effective. (Blasphemy, right?)

Why? I'm only guessin' here, but I'm sure the Walt Disney Co. wouldn't been too keen on Mickey reverting to his roots... thumbing his nose at "the man" and being a bit of an ornery troublemaker. They've got a corporate image to maintain, and Mickey's (happy, non-threatening) face is the face everyone associates with that image.

Now, the ducks? Just like real duck, they've got a stronger flavor all their own. wink

Duck stories are often *character* driven. In fact, many a story has been told centered on Donald's or Scrooge's foibles -- usually to comedic (or catastrophic) effect!

As such, I can see the allure of picking Ducks over Mice from a creator's point of view. They're just more fully realized *characters.*

Just my opinion. And this certainly isn't meant to belittle the excellent Mickey stories that have been told over the years. I'm just of the opinion that Mickey happened to be along for the ride in most of those stories, as opposed to driving the stories along with his own personality.
I bet if Boom sicked Mark Waid on Mickey, they'd triple their readership overnight, just for the sheer novelty of it. ;)

@Charlie Brown--yeah, but that's GERMANY. Demographics are not at all the same in the US. Sure, *I'd* love it if they went that route, but its success seems questionable at best.
I do sympathize with Boom! here; marketing Disney comics in this day and age can't be easy, and given the failure of Gemstone, it's only natural they would want to try SOMETHING new. But I'm with Rodney--I'm just not interested in these fan-fic-ish spy/fantasy/superhero crossovers. I am entirely willing to acknowledge that this is irrelevant to the company's plans--I'm not in their target audience. Okay--but I'm really not sure that the kids' market is sufficiently robust that the company can really AFFORD to completely alienate older, more traditionalist fans. If they would meet me halfway--say, a sixty-four page book with half regular duck stories/half superhero-whatever stories--I would be more than willing to bite. But that would run counter to their strategy of marketing shorter, cheaper books. Woe is them!

I really have to wonder if there are only so many Disney comics readers to be had in the direct market. Most kids just don't hang out in comic shops.

Quote from user: KneonI really have to wonder if there are only so many Disney comics readers to be had in the direct market. Most kids just don't hang out in comic shops.
It's kind of the same thing that happened with baseball cards in the late eighties, early nineties.....stuff got really expensive, too many variants or sets/titles, and not enough marketing approach vs. technological advances in toys, home gaming and such. I still get my kid a couple of packs of Topps, a Duncan yo-yo and a comic book for every Easter basket, Christmas stocking and birthday though.....he seems to spend more time reading comics and collecting cards than the video games anymore.....but of course, some would say I re-live my childhood through him..... ;)

Quote from user: travisseitlerI've never met a young child who entered a comic shop looking for translated Italian "funny animal" books.
Dude, you've seen real, live children in comic book shops?! Where have you been shopping? ;)

People don't avoid lousy Donald Duck comic books because of Donald Duck. They avoid them because the books are lousy.
For decades, publishers have been having trouble grasping this distinction. ;)
I think they must see the characters' brand recognition and think their comics will be some sort of "silver bullet" as a result, so they don't bother investing in quality stories. Then, when the books don't sell well, they blame it on the characters (people just don't like Mickey Mouse anymore) or the readers (people just love video games too much) instead of taking responsibility for publishing something shallow and vapid.
"B-E-S-U-R-E-T-O-D-R-I-N-K-Y-O-U-R-O-V-A-L-T-I-N-E"

GeoX, the main problem is that the other countries we're talking about have had a sustained, substantial Disney Comics reader base for decades. So just as with Spider-Man and Batman and X-Men stories from the U.S., their writers come at the characters with years' worth of "baggage" about them, and many presumptions as to who/what their readers will be familiar with.
Then there's the additional problem that comes when dealing with scripts that just aren't funny (or don't make sense, period) when translated into English. Along these same lines, I would never suggest (assuming parity of quality) that U.S. stories would be superior to Italian stories within the Italian market.
Please don't read nationalism into my thoughts. I was merely speaking of cultural fluency.