Disney-comics digest #407.
James_Williams at ESS.NIAID.pc.niaid.nih.gov
Thu Aug 18 19:09:47 CEST 1994
>The reason beeing that I am disappointed to an undescribable degree
>about Disney throwing overboard all the high standards for first class
>entertainment and jumping unto the "Sky Channel"-style comics with:
This assumes that everything Disney's done in the past was of great
quality and that these new cartoons and comics are of a lesser quality.
I'm not qualified to argue the merits of Disney's animation, so I'll
stick with their comics. While Disney Comics have given us the likes
of Barks and Rosa, they've also given us a bunch of REALLY bad comics.
When I was growing up, the Disney comics being published by Gold Key
were terrible. I grew up hating Disney comics. If not for Don
Thompson, may he rest in peace, I probably would still not read Disney
comics. Sure these new comics don't feature Donald or Mickey, but they
do feature complete stories, good artwork, humor instead of satire, and
action instead of violence.
>- Total neglect of the characters previous history. It breaks my
>heart to see Baloo in his new role, beeing reduced from that wonderful,
>relaxed bear to a modern, busy pilot.
Since when did Disney characters have a history? Donald, Mickey, and
Goofy were always playing various roles in the cartoons. In fact,
Floyd Gottfredson, Al Taliferro, and Carl Barks could all be condemned
because their characters differed from what appeared in the cartoons.
I'd rather see these characters used with respect then simply
forgotten about. I'll give you a good example. One of my favorite
Disney cartoon characters is Humphery the Bear. He had not appeared in
years. But, he has made two apperances in the Disney Afternoon.
>I hate to conclude that I won't ever be able to say to anyone again
>that bying a comic video with the name Disney on it is a sure sign of
But Disney's put out plenty of bad animation. A really good example of
this is "The Lion King". What a dreadful movie.
More information about the DCML