Those are good points, Donald_Duck. I am very happy that BOOM is trying something different, I am just giving my opinion on what I personally don't like about them and why I think they may not be selling well. We don't have all the sales figures, but Kneon's direct market numbers show a significant downward trend.
I like Casty's Mickey Mouse work in WDC&S very much, however BOOM is IMO overdoing it by printing 4 issues of the World to Come, then 4 issues of Quandomai Island and then more issues with The Orbiting Nightmare (that is the next Mickey Mouse paperback coming out according to Amazon). That's a whole year of the same style stories. Might as well rename it Casty's Comics & Stories if you ask me.
Yes, the back-up stories to Ultraheroes and other titles are 'classic' stories, but even these short stories are chopped up in little pieces. It's like selling a DVD with the last 1/3 of Toy Story 1 and the first 2/3 of Toy Story 2 and then half of a Pixar short because there are some minutes left on the disc. Nobody would buy such a strange collection of half movies either.
I'm still buying all of BOOM's comics with the classic characters, for now. I REALLY like the quality of the books; the stories really stand out on the beautiful glossy paper. The covers are beautiful too and I think it's neat they do multiple covers. Like I said, I am really enjoying Casty's stories and I also like the Double Duck series in DD&F. I was pleased to see the new letters column in WDC&S and I hope they'll add it to the other series as well. I also like the fact that they have a nice website with a forum, that they're on Twitter, Facebook, etc; they seem much more accessible than other publishers were. Best of all are, of course, their original Pixar comics and the Muppets comics are awesome. The characters, dialogue and atmosphere in comics like The Incredibles and Cars are just spot on! The writers of those series are doing a really excellent job.
Author
Topic: Boom Titles -- Sept 2010
(67 messages)
Arthur
Boom Titles -- Sept 2010
Message 31 -
2010-07-27 at 13:21:47
JessePost
Boom Titles -- Sept 2010
Message 32 -
2010-07-27 at 13:32:47
Arthur -- all excellent points, of course, and entirely legitimate analyses. I spend a lot of time with Boom working on the pub strategy every week and these kinds of higher level business decisions about format, page count, anthology vs long-format, etc are at the top of every agenda. I encourage you (and everyone else) to write to Boom with all concerns and suggestions.
However, while your post is much appreciated (as everything you write about us is!) it also doesn't address the initial question about whether the characters are "true" or "correct" in these stories. You start to make the assertion again when you say the characters aren't "themselves" but then you don't support the assertion with a critical analysis. I'm not saying the assertion is insupportable, just that no one has bothered to support it yet.
To my knowledge, the only alternative universe storyline we published this year was Wizards, and even that one portrays the characters authentically. The message being that no matter where or when they are, their natures will shine through. I see this as being no different than the many MANY alternative universe superhero comics that are published every month to keep things interesting.
The rest are "in continuity" such as we can have anything remotely resembling continuity in a 70-year history of gag strips and short adventure comics. Careful readers of Ultraheroes will notice the callouts and references to some of the characters' superhero pasts in the classic material. And as I've already pointed out, Donald is very much himself in the current storyline.
However, while your post is much appreciated (as everything you write about us is!) it also doesn't address the initial question about whether the characters are "true" or "correct" in these stories. You start to make the assertion again when you say the characters aren't "themselves" but then you don't support the assertion with a critical analysis. I'm not saying the assertion is insupportable, just that no one has bothered to support it yet.
To my knowledge, the only alternative universe storyline we published this year was Wizards, and even that one portrays the characters authentically. The message being that no matter where or when they are, their natures will shine through. I see this as being no different than the many MANY alternative universe superhero comics that are published every month to keep things interesting.
The rest are "in continuity" such as we can have anything remotely resembling continuity in a 70-year history of gag strips and short adventure comics. Careful readers of Ultraheroes will notice the callouts and references to some of the characters' superhero pasts in the classic material. And as I've already pointed out, Donald is very much himself in the current storyline.
Arthur
Boom Titles -- Sept 2010
Message 33 -
2010-07-27 at 14:12:50
I see Double Duck, Wizards of Mickey and Ultraheroes as 'alternate universe' stories. I think if you look at ALL the stories that are out there, that have been produced by the various publishing houses over the last decades, that only a very small number of them are these type of alternate universe stories. My guess would be less than 1%. Even in Italy, where they have taken this the furthest with series like PK and X-Mickey, they are still the odd-story out.
Of course, the characters are still authentic in these alternate universes; Mickey is not suddenly going to start cursing because he'll always be a nice guy. But in the 'real world' he's not a wizard, and in the real world Donald is not a super spy. I think that some people, like myself, are simply so used to the 99% of other stories that we label these as 'not normal'.
Of course, the characters are still authentic in these alternate universes; Mickey is not suddenly going to start cursing because he'll always be a nice guy. But in the 'real world' he's not a wizard, and in the real world Donald is not a super spy. I think that some people, like myself, are simply so used to the 99% of other stories that we label these as 'not normal'.
Alexander Knox
Boom Titles -- Sept 2010
Message 34 -
2010-07-27 at 14:35:19
I was pretty into the Boom! comics at first, but slowly dropped all the titles but Uncle Scrooge. I agree that the Scrooge stories have been weak, but nostalgia won't let me pass up on Ducktales.
Darkwing Duck and the Muppet books have been pretty terrific though.
Darkwing Duck and the Muppet books have been pretty terrific though.
Mcduck_Enterprises
Boom Titles -- Sept 2010
Message 35 -
2010-07-27 at 17:41:27
Quote from user: Donald_DuckI hear what you guys are saying, but I'm still pretty baffled when you compare what you're requesting versus what's been made available to you:
1) The old Disney Comics format (ODCF) had mostly shorter stories - Boom is an American comic book publisher. You can't fault them for following the industry standard format of having four issue spanning stories that collect into a trade paperback, down the road. And if I'm not mistaken, haven't the last 6 or 7 issues of WDCS and the first two issues of DuckTales contained multiple stories? Heck, even Ultraheroes had the classic origin stories of some of the characters that starred in the book, as backups.
2) The ODCF had different styles of stories, mostly traditional Barksian style where the characters were 'themselves' - Again I site 'Mickey Mouse & The World to Come,' and the current 'Quandomai Island.' Uncle Scrooge hasn't taken on any other role since the book was relaunched. And is Donald Duck NOT 'himself' in Double Duck? Does he NOT live in Duckburg? Is Uncle Scrooge still not his impatient boss demanding that he polish coins? Is Gladstone Gander still not showing up to sh*t in Donald's proverbial cereal with his impossible luck? Does Donald not drive the 313? That's three out of 5 for classic character books. Ultraheroes and Wizards of Mickey were given their own books after they filled one trade paperback each in the legacy titles. So what's the problem?
3) The ODCF had a combination of old and new stories - Boom classic hardcovers anyone? And now Fantagraphics has the license for classic creator anthologies. I think we'll be covered as far the older material goes.
4) The ODCF had mostly complete stories, rarely using long form ones - See point #1
5) The ODCF had stories from different sources - Maybe I'm reading InDucks incorrectly, but it appears to me that Boom has been using stories not only from Italy, but from the Netherlands as well. The ENTIRE first Uncle Scrooge arc appears that to have been published originally by Egmont (Netherlands).
6) The ODCF used 3-tier stories in smaller books, and 4-tier stories regular sized books - Aren't we being wee bit picky when regardless of the panel spread, we're still getting 22 pages of Disney comics in 5 different titles per month, when not too long ago, there were none?
I'm not trying to be condescending towards anybody's subjective tastes or preferences. I personally am huge on content, and I was NOT a fan of the 'Hunt for the Old Number-One' (zzzzzzzzzz). I'm just not sure how so many people who champion Disney comics complain about a publisher taking a different approach to putting out these books simply because it's not done in the way they remember them. I've seen the debate on whether or not the Gemstone books were just as financially successful as Boom's, but what you can't argue with is that the last two companies who published Disney comics in the ODCF aren't around anymore. Maybe it's time to embrace a little bit of change; and I hope by the points I addressed above, you can see that it's not that much.
For goodness sake, Boom's had a little over a year with this license, and they've done some quality stuff. Maybe over time, with a bit more support (honey vs vinegar), they'll get even better. If these dudes don't try to reach different audiences, other than the hardcore fans of many years, who'll be left to care about the legacy of these characters in comics when we're all gone?
You honestly sound like a marketing person from BOOM! defending the license........
No problem if you are,
I do really think the Double Duck stories were pretty good for what they are..... I just think Scrooge could be done way better....my 9 year old read it and said it was bland. We need another Rosa.....
1) The old Disney Comics format (ODCF) had mostly shorter stories - Boom is an American comic book publisher. You can't fault them for following the industry standard format of having four issue spanning stories that collect into a trade paperback, down the road. And if I'm not mistaken, haven't the last 6 or 7 issues of WDCS and the first two issues of DuckTales contained multiple stories? Heck, even Ultraheroes had the classic origin stories of some of the characters that starred in the book, as backups.
2) The ODCF had different styles of stories, mostly traditional Barksian style where the characters were 'themselves' - Again I site 'Mickey Mouse & The World to Come,' and the current 'Quandomai Island.' Uncle Scrooge hasn't taken on any other role since the book was relaunched. And is Donald Duck NOT 'himself' in Double Duck? Does he NOT live in Duckburg? Is Uncle Scrooge still not his impatient boss demanding that he polish coins? Is Gladstone Gander still not showing up to sh*t in Donald's proverbial cereal with his impossible luck? Does Donald not drive the 313? That's three out of 5 for classic character books. Ultraheroes and Wizards of Mickey were given their own books after they filled one trade paperback each in the legacy titles. So what's the problem?
3) The ODCF had a combination of old and new stories - Boom classic hardcovers anyone? And now Fantagraphics has the license for classic creator anthologies. I think we'll be covered as far the older material goes.
4) The ODCF had mostly complete stories, rarely using long form ones - See point #1
5) The ODCF had stories from different sources - Maybe I'm reading InDucks incorrectly, but it appears to me that Boom has been using stories not only from Italy, but from the Netherlands as well. The ENTIRE first Uncle Scrooge arc appears that to have been published originally by Egmont (Netherlands).
6) The ODCF used 3-tier stories in smaller books, and 4-tier stories regular sized books - Aren't we being wee bit picky when regardless of the panel spread, we're still getting 22 pages of Disney comics in 5 different titles per month, when not too long ago, there were none?
I'm not trying to be condescending towards anybody's subjective tastes or preferences. I personally am huge on content, and I was NOT a fan of the 'Hunt for the Old Number-One' (zzzzzzzzzz). I'm just not sure how so many people who champion Disney comics complain about a publisher taking a different approach to putting out these books simply because it's not done in the way they remember them. I've seen the debate on whether or not the Gemstone books were just as financially successful as Boom's, but what you can't argue with is that the last two companies who published Disney comics in the ODCF aren't around anymore. Maybe it's time to embrace a little bit of change; and I hope by the points I addressed above, you can see that it's not that much.
For goodness sake, Boom's had a little over a year with this license, and they've done some quality stuff. Maybe over time, with a bit more support (honey vs vinegar), they'll get even better. If these dudes don't try to reach different audiences, other than the hardcore fans of many years, who'll be left to care about the legacy of these characters in comics when we're all gone?
You honestly sound like a marketing person from BOOM! defending the license........
No problem if you are,
I do really think the Double Duck stories were pretty good for what they are..... I just think Scrooge could be done way better....my 9 year old read it and said it was bland. We need another Rosa.....
Charlie Brown
Boom Titles -- Sept 2010
Message 36 -
2010-07-27 at 18:02:29
Quote from user: arthur1. people dropping an entire series because they don't like a single story (which goes on for over a year);
2. people not picking up a new series in the store because they've missed a huge part of the story;
I think that's the main point. Stories should not go beyond 3 issues and the multi-part-story should only be a small part of an issue. I liked the Comics&Stories books with 2-3 single-stories and a multi-part-story in the back.
Besides that, I don't like the drawing and layout of e.g. Double Duck. It too much like the Marvel stuff. I like the art and stories from authors and artists like Vicar, Daniel Branca, Romano Scarpa and not so known authors and artists with stories like http://coa.inducks.org/story.php?c=D++7232 or http://coa.inducks.org/story.php?c=D++6846 There are a lot in the US unprinted stories out there.
At last I miss reprints of Carl Barks and Don Rosa. A complete collectors edition would be best. But that's another discussion.
2. people not picking up a new series in the store because they've missed a huge part of the story;
I think that's the main point. Stories should not go beyond 3 issues and the multi-part-story should only be a small part of an issue. I liked the Comics&Stories books with 2-3 single-stories and a multi-part-story in the back.
Besides that, I don't like the drawing and layout of e.g. Double Duck. It too much like the Marvel stuff. I like the art and stories from authors and artists like Vicar, Daniel Branca, Romano Scarpa and not so known authors and artists with stories like http://coa.inducks.org/story.php?c=D++7232 or http://coa.inducks.org/story.php?c=D++6846 There are a lot in the US unprinted stories out there.
At last I miss reprints of Carl Barks and Don Rosa. A complete collectors edition would be best. But that's another discussion.
JessePost
Boom Titles -- Sept 2010
Message 37 -
2010-07-27 at 18:56:35
"I see Double Duck, Wizards of Mickey and Ultraheroes as 'alternate universe' stories."
I guess I have to continue differing with you on this one, my friend! Bringing this back to Donald_Duck's original point, how can we truly establish what constitutes a "real world" for these characters, given our 70-plus-year history of sending them to space, Shangri-La, under the ocean, into the future, and back in time? And let me be clear that I'm not referring to established alternative universe tales like "Wizards of Mickey," "Mickey and the Beanstalk," etc. but all the rest that folks on the forum consider "real." These "real" adventures run the range from domestic humor gags to outrageous high adventure, sci-fi, and fantasy. Again, I'm not defending the quality of the stories and art (that's for you to criticize, not me). I'm only making the point that they are created firmly within the bounds of what has come before, with knowing and respectful nods on every page.
Here's a partial quote from an Amazon review of "Double Duck" that sums up the facts of the case quite nicely:
"True fans . . . know that what has made him so endearing to generations of comic book readers since the 1940s is his ability to be an everyman. Donald is weighed down by the same stresses that affect all of us - bills, employment, home repair, family issues, romantic aspirations, and even his own limitations. . . . That's the true joy of Double Duck. It takes our quintessential everyman, caught up in a world of bickering, exhaustion, and unfair parking tickets, and thrusts him into the hero role of a wonderfully escapist spy fantasy. At first, Donald is the same bumbling clod that any of us would be in such a context, but, eventually, his own brilliance, resourcefulness, and heroism begin to shine. Fortunately, Donald never becomes a James Bond. He doesn't magically transform into a thoroughly unrealistic hero that performs the impossible; he just becomes a practical guy who makes good use of the resources that are presented to him."
And though I'm no expert on the historical details, Ultraheroes is a continuation of the "real world" adventures of the characters in their various super personas, the first of which (Super Goof) appeared way back in 1965.
I think we would fail at our jobs as storytellers if we didn't continue to extend, expand, evolve, and further interpret and explore these characters by putting them in situations that aren't repeats of what we've already seen them do.
I guess I have to continue differing with you on this one, my friend! Bringing this back to Donald_Duck's original point, how can we truly establish what constitutes a "real world" for these characters, given our 70-plus-year history of sending them to space, Shangri-La, under the ocean, into the future, and back in time? And let me be clear that I'm not referring to established alternative universe tales like "Wizards of Mickey," "Mickey and the Beanstalk," etc. but all the rest that folks on the forum consider "real." These "real" adventures run the range from domestic humor gags to outrageous high adventure, sci-fi, and fantasy. Again, I'm not defending the quality of the stories and art (that's for you to criticize, not me). I'm only making the point that they are created firmly within the bounds of what has come before, with knowing and respectful nods on every page.
Here's a partial quote from an Amazon review of "Double Duck" that sums up the facts of the case quite nicely:
"True fans . . . know that what has made him so endearing to generations of comic book readers since the 1940s is his ability to be an everyman. Donald is weighed down by the same stresses that affect all of us - bills, employment, home repair, family issues, romantic aspirations, and even his own limitations. . . . That's the true joy of Double Duck. It takes our quintessential everyman, caught up in a world of bickering, exhaustion, and unfair parking tickets, and thrusts him into the hero role of a wonderfully escapist spy fantasy. At first, Donald is the same bumbling clod that any of us would be in such a context, but, eventually, his own brilliance, resourcefulness, and heroism begin to shine. Fortunately, Donald never becomes a James Bond. He doesn't magically transform into a thoroughly unrealistic hero that performs the impossible; he just becomes a practical guy who makes good use of the resources that are presented to him."
And though I'm no expert on the historical details, Ultraheroes is a continuation of the "real world" adventures of the characters in their various super personas, the first of which (Super Goof) appeared way back in 1965.
I think we would fail at our jobs as storytellers if we didn't continue to extend, expand, evolve, and further interpret and explore these characters by putting them in situations that aren't repeats of what we've already seen them do.
Annabcole
Boom Titles -- Sept 2010
Message 38 -
2010-07-27 at 19:07:30
Quote from user: JessePostHowever, while your post is much appreciated (as everything you write about us is!) it also doesn't address the initial question about whether the characters are "true" or "correct" in these stories.
I'm new here, but I've been reading the Boom comics for awhile and I have read many other Disney comics before them.
The Italian stories published by Boom are in character most of the time, at least as far as basic plot and motivation. But they're missing something.
I might call it "edge." For at least the first six months, the vast majority had very generic-sounding writing. While the stories might well have been written colorfully in Italian, very little of that color seemed to be brought over to the English versions; characters just blandly said whatever was necessary to move the plot. Furthermore it seemed like the Boom team had superficial knowledge of the characters. Donald called Scrooge not "Uncle Scrooge" or "Unk" but simply "Uncle." Mickey suddenly had the nickname "little mouse," even though no one had ever called him that before (maybe it was a translator's misunderstanding of the Italian name "Topolino," which means little mouse?). Magica threw "poof bombs" instead of foof bombs. Surprised ducks shouted "Quack" instead of "Wak." Eega Beeva spoke without putting his usual P's at the start of random words. Taken in isolation, each of these details may seem fannish to complain about; but there were dozens of them, which meant that the comics' overall mood really did take a hit. How would Pixar fans like Buzz Lightyear suddenly saying "to eternity and beyond"?
More recently there has been more of an effort to make the characters sound like themselves, but it's inconsistent. The Red Bat origin, the Peg-Leg Pete Alien Band story, and a lot of Double Duck still sound very stilted to me. Donald still shouts "Quack!" Eega Beeva is still P-less and eats mothballs instead of the kumquats he should eat (I've read that Italy traditionally substitutes mothballs, so it's a matter of Boom not knowing that the American tradition is different).
Let's give Boom credit where it's due: at least the early issues' blandness is mostly gone, and so are some errors (foof bombs are now correct). But there's still room for improvement. Sometimes, I find issues trying hard to be funny with a lot of joking going on in the dialogue, but it feels a little forced. Sometimes the true Disney comics character humor isn't about actually cracking one-liners, but just generally speaking in an exaggerated and slightly comical way. "Great Howling Crashwagons!" Scrooge, Donald, and Mickey each have their own special selection of catchphrases like this.
"Quandomai Island" in particular really does sound the way Disney comics ought to, maybe in part because ex-Gemstone people are working on it. But why did it take a year to reach that point?
I'm new here, but I've been reading the Boom comics for awhile and I have read many other Disney comics before them.
The Italian stories published by Boom are in character most of the time, at least as far as basic plot and motivation. But they're missing something.
I might call it "edge." For at least the first six months, the vast majority had very generic-sounding writing. While the stories might well have been written colorfully in Italian, very little of that color seemed to be brought over to the English versions; characters just blandly said whatever was necessary to move the plot. Furthermore it seemed like the Boom team had superficial knowledge of the characters. Donald called Scrooge not "Uncle Scrooge" or "Unk" but simply "Uncle." Mickey suddenly had the nickname "little mouse," even though no one had ever called him that before (maybe it was a translator's misunderstanding of the Italian name "Topolino," which means little mouse?). Magica threw "poof bombs" instead of foof bombs. Surprised ducks shouted "Quack" instead of "Wak." Eega Beeva spoke without putting his usual P's at the start of random words. Taken in isolation, each of these details may seem fannish to complain about; but there were dozens of them, which meant that the comics' overall mood really did take a hit. How would Pixar fans like Buzz Lightyear suddenly saying "to eternity and beyond"?
More recently there has been more of an effort to make the characters sound like themselves, but it's inconsistent. The Red Bat origin, the Peg-Leg Pete Alien Band story, and a lot of Double Duck still sound very stilted to me. Donald still shouts "Quack!" Eega Beeva is still P-less and eats mothballs instead of the kumquats he should eat (I've read that Italy traditionally substitutes mothballs, so it's a matter of Boom not knowing that the American tradition is different).
Let's give Boom credit where it's due: at least the early issues' blandness is mostly gone, and so are some errors (foof bombs are now correct). But there's still room for improvement. Sometimes, I find issues trying hard to be funny with a lot of joking going on in the dialogue, but it feels a little forced. Sometimes the true Disney comics character humor isn't about actually cracking one-liners, but just generally speaking in an exaggerated and slightly comical way. "Great Howling Crashwagons!" Scrooge, Donald, and Mickey each have their own special selection of catchphrases like this.
"Quandomai Island" in particular really does sound the way Disney comics ought to, maybe in part because ex-Gemstone people are working on it. But why did it take a year to reach that point?
Arthur
Boom Titles -- Sept 2010
Message 39 -
2010-07-27 at 19:37:47
Quote from user: JessePostI guess I have to continue differing with you on this one, my friend!
Okay, everyone has a different opinion on this matter. But for me this is not the issue. I never minded the occasional Super Goof story in WDC&S and I enjoyed World of the Dragonlords when Gemstone published it in a TPB in 2005 (the proper way to publishing such a long story!).
My gripe is with the long sagas that hijack a monthly series for 1+ year and not having a variety of shorter stories. Short stories are much better suited for these monthly comics IMO.
Okay, everyone has a different opinion on this matter. But for me this is not the issue. I never minded the occasional Super Goof story in WDC&S and I enjoyed World of the Dragonlords when Gemstone published it in a TPB in 2005 (the proper way to publishing such a long story!).
My gripe is with the long sagas that hijack a monthly series for 1+ year and not having a variety of shorter stories. Short stories are much better suited for these monthly comics IMO.
Sim
Boom Titles -- Sept 2010
Message 40 -
2010-07-27 at 20:14:54
I'm Italian, but I almost don't miss a number of American Top Issues, but I don't like they're only publishing Italian Sagas or Italian '90's stories and I don't like they publish stories in Italian Pocket Format.
I think they should publish new American stories, if they have, or stories from all over the world, by artist as Vicar or Van Horn or Heymans or Scarpa or re-publish Barks' and Strobl's stories and not publish DoubleDuck and Wizard of Mickey etc. ...
Those are stories for li'l boys and not for people "from 3 to 90" as publicized Walt Disnney's Comics and Stories many years ago.
- Walt Zuti
I think they should publish new American stories, if they have, or stories from all over the world, by artist as Vicar or Van Horn or Heymans or Scarpa or re-publish Barks' and Strobl's stories and not publish DoubleDuck and Wizard of Mickey etc. ...
Those are stories for li'l boys and not for people "from 3 to 90" as publicized Walt Disnney's Comics and Stories many years ago.
- Walt Zuti
JessePost
Boom Titles -- Sept 2010
Message 41 -
2010-07-27 at 21:35:04
Gotcha, Arthur! I see that your main gripe is not whether or not the characters are in their own real worlds, but more about Boom's chosen publishing format. Totally fair point. It seems to be the main concern on the forums, actually.
In any event, I hope that this little dialogue was helpful to others who have looked at the covers and decided the stories weren't "real." For anyone else who's not convinced, I only ask that you give the stories a fair shake (as annabcole has) and read a few issues/chapters before deciding it's not for you. You can usually find Boom's preview pages for each issue online, and the library is a great place to try before you buy.
I've found that, at least with "Double Duck," most people get into it once they realize it's the same duck they've always loved, just as that Amazon reviewer did. Whether it's comics, movies, novels, etc., I think it's fun to see our favorite characters react to new challenges and bizarre situations!
In any event, I hope that this little dialogue was helpful to others who have looked at the covers and decided the stories weren't "real." For anyone else who's not convinced, I only ask that you give the stories a fair shake (as annabcole has) and read a few issues/chapters before deciding it's not for you. You can usually find Boom's preview pages for each issue online, and the library is a great place to try before you buy.
I've found that, at least with "Double Duck," most people get into it once they realize it's the same duck they've always loved, just as that Amazon reviewer did. Whether it's comics, movies, novels, etc., I think it's fun to see our favorite characters react to new challenges and bizarre situations!
JessePost
Boom Titles -- Sept 2010
Message 42 -
2010-07-27 at 22:41:28
One other thing I forgot to ask about, regarding the need for reprinted older stories in every issue. Would folks mind shedding some light on why this is? I've been reading comics non-stop since I was 4 and I've never felt that any publisher had a responsibility to include older stuff in new issues. After all, I already have those! :)
I picked up the latest issue of Action Comics last week which, like WDCS, just passed its 700th issue. I liked it but it made me nostalgic for the older Dan Jurgens / Jerry Ordway run, so I dug up the old issues, spread em out on the floor, made a cup of coffee, and had myself a blast of a Sunday morning. This seems so much quicker and more efficient than writing to DC asking them to reprint them so I can buy them again.
Since I don't see any Lee / Ditko stories running in the back of every new issue of Spider-Man, this need seems to be particular to Disney readers. I'm really curious to learn more about this if anyone wants to take the time to elaborate.
I picked up the latest issue of Action Comics last week which, like WDCS, just passed its 700th issue. I liked it but it made me nostalgic for the older Dan Jurgens / Jerry Ordway run, so I dug up the old issues, spread em out on the floor, made a cup of coffee, and had myself a blast of a Sunday morning. This seems so much quicker and more efficient than writing to DC asking them to reprint them so I can buy them again.
Since I don't see any Lee / Ditko stories running in the back of every new issue of Spider-Man, this need seems to be particular to Disney readers. I'm really curious to learn more about this if anyone wants to take the time to elaborate.
GeoX
Boom Titles -- Sept 2010
Message 43 -
2010-07-27 at 23:35:51
For me, it's more a matter of "old stories that haven't been published in the US before. But as for requests for Barks and Rosa reprints and the like, I think the feeling--with which I cannot really argue--is that these are extremely important cultural and literary artifacts, and it's hugely unfortunate that they're accessible for a new generation of readers.
Another factor is that--and this is probably the main reason why you see the complaint raised mostly by Disney readers--is that other comics publishers tend to release a LOT more in the way of large, paperback collections of classic material. Thus, readers can familiarize themselves with earlier stories while still keeping up with the new. However, in the case of Disney comics, this is virtually never done, let alone in any systematic way. If you could buy thick volumes of Barks stories, I don't think most people would be so keen to see them reprinted in regular comic books, but you CAN'T, and given the history of Disney publishing, there's no expectation that you ought to be able to. Thus, people see regular-book reprints as the only way to get them. I quite agree that a systematic reprinting of important older material separate from the regular line would be the way to go. But that does not appear to be happening, so all we can do is learn to live with this choppy, piecemeal situation.
Another factor is that--and this is probably the main reason why you see the complaint raised mostly by Disney readers--is that other comics publishers tend to release a LOT more in the way of large, paperback collections of classic material. Thus, readers can familiarize themselves with earlier stories while still keeping up with the new. However, in the case of Disney comics, this is virtually never done, let alone in any systematic way. If you could buy thick volumes of Barks stories, I don't think most people would be so keen to see them reprinted in regular comic books, but you CAN'T, and given the history of Disney publishing, there's no expectation that you ought to be able to. Thus, people see regular-book reprints as the only way to get them. I quite agree that a systematic reprinting of important older material separate from the regular line would be the way to go. But that does not appear to be happening, so all we can do is learn to live with this choppy, piecemeal situation.
Dean Rekich
Boom Titles -- Sept 2010
Message 44 -
2010-07-28 at 00:40:03
I totally agree with GeoX on this with regards to Barks, Rosa, etc. re-re-reprints, JessePost. Do you have any idea why Boom is *not* publishing TPBs and/or libraries of old material? I can understand that the hardcovers were not selling due to the high price point. Instead of canceling all of them though, why not just print the exact same volume but in a TPB format? That should make the cost go from about $25 to $15 and I think that would make a lot of difference.
I think the people at Boom try to treat the Disney titles as if they were DC or Marvel titles. They most certainly are not! I think a lot of disfavor people have here on the DCF is Boom acting in such a way. Why in the world when there are literally *thousands* of 16 page or less stories never printed in North America, would Boom put big, long, sagas, in their monthly comic books?!? If Boom wants to publish Double Duck, Wizards of Mickey, etc., why not publish them *directly* in a TPB format to start with? The monthly stories could then be reservered for shorter and more traditonal stories.
One more thing for now. Lets separate Disney stories into 3 categories:
1. "Traditional" 4 panel stories by Egmont by people such as Vicar, Branca, Rota, etc., etc.
2. More modern *loooong* Italian created stories.
3. Barks, Van Horn, Rosa, etc. reprints.
It seems like Boom is focusing 99% of what it publishes to number 2. However of the 3, I think that is what most of the people here of the DCF *least* want to see. :( So it seems like while we keep asking for 1 or 3, we keep being told, "Keep trying more of 2! You might learn to like it!" I think most of us know already that these stories are not for us.
The mistake Boom makes is sticking to only publishing type 2 storiees, when they could and should publish type 1, 2 and 3 stories! Why not publish long Italian stories in TPBs or digests? Then the monthly comics could be mostly reserved for type 1 stories. Finally, I think most of us would *love* type 3 stories (classic reprints) in TPBs, or even complete libraries.
So my final question is: why is Boom so bound and determined to almost exclusively publish type 2 stories, when most of us want 1 and 3?
I think the people at Boom try to treat the Disney titles as if they were DC or Marvel titles. They most certainly are not! I think a lot of disfavor people have here on the DCF is Boom acting in such a way. Why in the world when there are literally *thousands* of 16 page or less stories never printed in North America, would Boom put big, long, sagas, in their monthly comic books?!? If Boom wants to publish Double Duck, Wizards of Mickey, etc., why not publish them *directly* in a TPB format to start with? The monthly stories could then be reservered for shorter and more traditonal stories.
One more thing for now. Lets separate Disney stories into 3 categories:
1. "Traditional" 4 panel stories by Egmont by people such as Vicar, Branca, Rota, etc., etc.
2. More modern *loooong* Italian created stories.
3. Barks, Van Horn, Rosa, etc. reprints.
It seems like Boom is focusing 99% of what it publishes to number 2. However of the 3, I think that is what most of the people here of the DCF *least* want to see. :( So it seems like while we keep asking for 1 or 3, we keep being told, "Keep trying more of 2! You might learn to like it!" I think most of us know already that these stories are not for us.
The mistake Boom makes is sticking to only publishing type 2 storiees, when they could and should publish type 1, 2 and 3 stories! Why not publish long Italian stories in TPBs or digests? Then the monthly comics could be mostly reserved for type 1 stories. Finally, I think most of us would *love* type 3 stories (classic reprints) in TPBs, or even complete libraries.
So my final question is: why is Boom so bound and determined to almost exclusively publish type 2 stories, when most of us want 1 and 3?
JessePost
Boom Titles -- Sept 2010
Message 45 -
2010-07-28 at 13:29:18
Dean, please don't misunderstand; I wasn't suggesting you should keep reading comics you don't like, only that you should read them before deciding you don't like them. Reading comics you don't like would be just plain crazy! :)
Of course, I'm not in a position to comment on pub plans before they're finalized and announced, but, as always, I urge you to direct your comments to Boom, either through emails/letters or their own forums.
Of course, I'm not in a position to comment on pub plans before they're finalized and announced, but, as always, I urge you to direct your comments to Boom, either through emails/letters or their own forums.