Pt 2/2: Disney-comics digest #408.

[Itrack+ 1.1/G7]

@SPLIT: 18 Aug 94  16:31:46 @105/42         1 02/02 +++++++++++

The destination address of your msg is not listed in the current nodelists
on my system.

     REGION24.182 NODELIST.217 CLSNET.LST FSFNODES.049 GAMESNET.049 DNETLIST.049 HDS_NODE.215 ZYX_NET.147 PB-NET.154 REGION24.182 NODELIST.217

Therefore I must return this message to you.

   Jens Mueller
   Sysop of EuroStar BBS, 2:24/24

==============================================================================
Orignal message header:

FROM:  disney-comics at minsk.docs.uu.se@1:105/42, 19 Aug 94  01:18:43
TO  :  Bent Pedersen at 2:230/823.9
SUBJ:  Pt 2/2: Disney-comics digest #408.
INTL:  2:230/823 1:105/42
==============================================================================

>So, now I'm curious -- is there any interest here in what
>happens to the "Rescue Rangers" or in a "Tale Spin" comic book? 

Thought they have appeared occasionaly in Disney Adventures Digest,
there haven't been RR or TS comics published since the Disney
implosion.  I bought both of those series and currently purchase DAD 
and Marvel's Disney comics.  In fact, I think Beauty and The Beast is
probably the best title Marvel publishes.

Why would a 30 year old man purchase Marvel's children's comics? 
Because they are fun.  The stories ranges from average to good.  The
artwork ranges from good to excellent.  They have stories (something
most super-hero comics lack).  They don't crossover into other titles.

>Was an important topic missed by not discussing Disney TV comics on 
>the San Diego panel?

Again, I wasn't there and refuse to criticize David.  I think the
question should be - should *we* ignore these comics.  I don't think so.
When Marvel's Disney Afternoon title begins next month, they will
become the #1 publisher of Disney comics in the US.

James Williams



======================================================================

Knut,

>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
>quality!

But Disney's put out plenty of bad animation.  A really good example of
this is "The Lion King".  What a dreadful movie.

James Williams


======================================================================
(End of digest.)
@Via 2:2/777 @19940819.063855 GEcho/386 1.02+