Digests 215-219

[Gary Leach]

HARRY:

>Maybe Gladstone can publish more original versions of "Darkest Africa" and
>"Race to the South Seas" in the colour albums CBL?

>GARY: What are Gladstone's plans?

Not sure, frankly. They will be published, of course, but in which version 
depends on many things, not the least being that at Gladstone's current staff 
level there's less than 1/2 of one person's attention able to be devoted to 
any issue of any comic or album we currently put out (from editing to coloring
to writing text to typesetting...).

DAVID:

Manpower is the #2 reason Gladstone cannot publish much of what deservedly 
should be published of Gottfredson's Mickey. The simple gruntwork it takes to 
make most of the art publishable, particularly by today's printing standards, 
is simply beyond our powers today. That doesn't even take into account 
reformatting for comic book pages, a step we don't necessarily have to take, I
agree. But by the time we folded the original Gladstone line it was blatantly 
obvious we'd been foolhardy to ever attempt to do the Mickey Mouse title as we
did. The harder we'd tried, the worse Mickey sold (and, sad to say, against 
what seems to be a widely held belief among our readership, Scarpa's issues 
ate our cash flow alive!).

And yet, we look back on those comics with great fondness, indeed. No one who 
hasn't poured the sweat we did into those original Gladstone Mickeys can know 
the bitterness we feel over the current state of affairs. Somehow, if we could
only get Disney to recognize Mickey as a character again, and not a trademark,
we could get things done even with our meager staff.

RON:

>>The debut strip for HD&L

>>So they haven't blown him up, but it's implied that they're certainly more
>>than one poor duck can stand.

>So how has Donald put up with them all these years?

Dad caved in after a firecracker pop; Donald would come down swinging even 
after a healthy dose of TNT! It's my pet theory that Donald's indomitability 
forced the nephews to mellow out, which is exactly what their mother figured 
on. So any day now, she will return to collect them, and every story told or 
to be told about the Ducks will occur at least one day before that...

TORSTEN:

Concerning cashier racks, Disney won't have any part of it on Gladstone's 
behalf (they just want their royalty payments), and Marvel has just opted out 
of spending $200 a month on continuing a co-op ad program with us. Gladstone's
all alone in the wilderness on this one. And guess which of the three 
companies doesn't have tens of thousands of dollars and banks of lawyers to 
throw into just negotiating this sort of thing?

HARRY AGAIN:

Lastest intelligence has it that Bob Foster is leaving Egmont in March and 
joining Daan Jippes at Amblin'. Should be interesting.

DON:

Bombie...the death of Scrooge's parents...sheesh! Mystic religions and 
mortality! We're not in Disneyland anymore...

I second all your remarks concerning Disney's lack of respect for comic books.
The real reason Disney attempted Disney Comics was because of a drastically 
misguided notion that it was just another way of printing money.

Let me add to what you've already knocked yourself out trying to make clear of
late: checkout racks cost MORE than a million, if you want anything like 
adequate market penetration. That's one big reason why Disney Adventures 
persists, because of the rack investment Disney had to make (and which would 
not be refunded, no sir, not on your life) before coming out with their first 
issue. Oddly, Gladstone can't seem to come up with a measly million-plus to 
throw into a marketing angle that has already proven itself to be decidedly 
unspectacular.

Tell DISNEY we're a foreign publisher, fer cryin' out loud! Mebbe then they'll
let US go our merry way and start harrassing EGMONT!

TO ALL:

Sorry about "Lillehammer." When we checked the color proofs everything was on 
register, but somehow the printer miscalculated. It was not a miscalculation 
of sufficient severity to warrant going back to press, however (Rule #1 of 
low-ticket periodical publication in the USA: NOTHING is of sufficient 
severity to warrant going back to press; Rule #2: better luck next time!).

DAVID AGAIN:

The HD&L strip introducing the nephews has been forbidden for reprinting by 
Disney. Discuss the situation all you like here, but be advised that the 
discussion is closed between Gladstone and Disney.

I appreciate what you (and Don) had to say concerning revisionism. While we're
quite gleeful about it when it comes to the Egmont material we use (we HAVE to
revise the dialogue!), it is something we're much less certain of when it 
comes to the "classics." Continued feedback from anyone on this will be 
welcome.

WILMER:

As to Disney holding Gladstone to a tighter standard than their foreign 
licensees, it seems they do, albeit unofficially. Disney is very, very jealous
of their image in the USA, and their efforts in defending it are breathtaking 
to behold. I wonder sometimes if there wasn't some study Disney got hold of 
concluding that children in the USA are congenitally incapable of perceiving 
their own existence without corporate guidance, while children in other 
countries are infused with a stubborn capacity to deal with reality 
unassisted. This is, of course, ridiculous, but it would explain a lot...

DAVID ONCE AGAIN:

As to reprinting "Son of the Sun," you bring up a disturbing point. It may 
have attained a status sufficient to shield it from censorship, especially as 
Gladstone published it twice already, but I dunno...

Here's a little formula for you: Disney's villains are Disney characters, 
therefore they are by the modern definition of Disney characters absolutely 
sweet and forthright little charmers. They have to hug the kiddies at the 
theme parks, after all (according to the commercials).

DON AGAIN, TOO:

Egmont isn't entirely unconstrained by Disney, but what you said pretty much 
hit the proverbial nail a smart rap. Several years ago I heard that Indonesia 
(I think it was Indonesia) nationalized the Disney characters, claiming they 
were the property of the people of that country and so not subject to the 
dictates of The Walt Disney Company as to their use in that country. It was a 
fascinating bit of hearsay, but I never heard any more about it. Has anyone 
else?

By the way, in all the discussions of the Duck family tree that I've perused 
here, no direct mention seems to have been made concerning Barks' own version,
which Another Rainbow published in Set VI of the original Carl Barks Library. 
I know you know all about it, but it just seems to me that it isn't figuring 
in the discussions here. Am I pointing something pertinent out here, or just 
utterly failing to intelligently follow the discussion in the first place?

ALL:

Russell Schroeder, once and future (make that imminent) Gladstone cover 
artist, is indeed the Disney approval guy for the comics, among his many other
duties in beautiful downtown Burbank. But he is hardly a power unto himself, 
and has been in general an amiable fellow to work with (he understands the 
urgency of deadlines, a singular trait). I fume at him, and he is not always 
pleased with me, but on the whole he tries to help us get things done and we 
find much of his feedback useful. We hope he stays in the loop.

Y'know, my step-family is Native American, and yet they never make me check 
with them to see if the comics toe the PC line in that area. And these are 
people knowledgeable and proud of their heritage, a heritage that transcends 
anything that might ever have appeared in the entertainment media. They do not
vest the guardianship of their sensibilities to such as Disney.

TORSTEN, FINALLY:

Thanks for the rundown on upcoming Gladstones. Is this a regular item that you
post?

It surprised me to find myself reading my own deathless ad copy for CBG #1055 
in Digest 219. I often find myself writing the CBG ads at the last minute, so 
I hope they mostly make sense...mostly.

AND THAT...

...is more than enough (and probably way too much) from me for now.

Gary