<div style="word-wrap: break-word;">
Tom:<br><br><blockquote style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;" class="gmail_quote"><div><span style="border-collapse: separate; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Helvetica; font-size: medium; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px;"><div>
I haven't seen any mention of this online... Should I assume this is speculation - or did it actually happen? If so, can anybody show me a reliable source?</div></span></div></blockquote><div><br>Gary:</div></div> <blockquote style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;" class="gmail_quote">
<div style="word-wrap: break-word;"><div>My experiences with negotiating a license with Disney (it's a wringer every licensee has to go through, though the Boom folks obviously have experience of their own with that already) lead me to believe it will be some time before we know anything "yea!" or "nay!" on the matter.</div>
</div></blockquote><div><br><br>Or, y'know, they could have said as much on Saturday: <<a href="http://newsarama.com/comics/060921-Boom-Disney.html">http://newsarama.com/comics/060921-Boom-Disney.html</a>> ;-)<br>
<br><blockquote style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;" class="gmail_quote">"We’re
going to start to approach the Mickey and Donald material from a
completely different direction, and we’re going to try to have
something that at the same time is less the ‘greatest hits’ reprints
and more dovetails into what the Boom Kids stuff is, which is sort of
an add to and extension of, modern presence creative take on these
classic characters that I think can connect with kids today." — Ross Richie (BOOM!
Studios’ co-founder and Publisher)</blockquote><div> </div><br>Yes, it's disheartening and embarrassing to watch publisher after publisher approach these characters as if they're only interesting when they're superheroes (Gemstone had its share of those stories, especially in their first year with the license). On the other hand, I'm VERY happy that there's no Barks in these books!<br>
<br><< everyone reaches for tar and feathers >><br>
<br>Now, hang on: Barks' work is excellent! If you were to say that his are the best Duck stories ever told, I would have a difficult time arguing with you. However... that does not mean their place is in a monthly book (especially one that's under 48 pages). And so I'm very happy that the folks at BOOM! seem to agree.<br>
<br>Barks and the other "greats" all belong in long-format collections like the CBL. Classic such as those are cheapened when they're used as cheap filler for monthly books. The periodical pamphlet -- at least in the U.S.A. -- is expected to contain all-new, serialized works. Reprints in periodicals give readers the impression that the publisher is just trying to save a few bucks (and, to be honest, that *is* very often the case).<br>
<br>So while I don't agree that these particular stories are the best choices for BOOM!'s relaunch of the Disney comics, I do believe that they're a better fit for the existing U.S. market (that is, a better fit than issues full of Barks, Rosa, Van Horn, Scarpa, Gottfredson, etc.).<br>
<br>And now that I've stuck my neck out on their behalf, I look forward to BOOM! proving me right in saying all that. ;-)<br>
<br clear="all">// Travis Seitler<br>:: <a href="mailto:travis.joel.seitler@gmail.com" target="_blank">travis.joel.seitler@gmail.com</a><br></div>