Comics are for children?

[Olaf Solstrand]

Don:
> As I've said many times, the comic book doesn't make
> me look bad. I make the comic book look good.

That sure is an excellent saying. I may quote you on that.



Sigvald:
> The truth is that the Scandinavian and German weeklies
> are regarded childish, because that's ecsactly what Egmont
> wants.

And what about other countries? I guess this problem is largest in the
United states?



> Why do you think that HD&L are drawn like "dipshits" on
> the covers of the German Mickey Moyse Magazine - if not
> to be sold to young kids?
>
> Why do you think that "childish toys" are included with the
> Scandinavian weeklies - if not to be sold to young kids?
>
> Why do you think that those stupid "Svinesen" pages are
> included with the Scandinavian weeklies - if not to be sold
> to kids?

Just a comment:
YES, Disney comics are for kids. YES, kids buy Disney comics. And so? IMHO,
Disney comics being made for kids is a GOOD thing! OK, Scandinavians and
Germans may have a "problem" - if it's a problem that the magazine contains
several pages of "Svinesen" and other things meant for those YEARS younger
than us, that we are forced into buying a cheap toy that's going straight
for the garbage bin anyway and that our covers show Huey, Dewey and Louie
wearing caps. But I feel that Americans have a bigger problem than us:
Americans make albums almost nobody buys. In Norway, a small Nordic country
with 4,5 million inhabitants, 140 000 copies of "Donald Duck & Co" are sold
EVERY WEEK - plus we have Donald Pocket, Mikke Mus Månedshefte, Skrue
Pocket, Fantonald and maybe some other publications I have forgot. The
United States of America have 280 million inhabitants, and if I remember
right, Gladstone's albums sold 20.000 copies every month (of which 10.000
went sealed straight into a bank box to stay in mint condition). For adults,
these albums may be better than the Norwegian weekly - but I don't care. Not
when Egmont has managed to make a magazine that is bought and loved by kids.
For even though kids may buy their first magazines because of  the toys or
the funny pages or the dipshits on the cover, they keep on buying it for
decades because of the stories. Which is why you and me and many others here
still buy the weekly.

I don't see a problem in the fact that Egmont is marketing their magazines
for kids. Should they make a magazine that you and I are willing to buy?
Nah, why would they do that - they already HAVE such a magazine. I buy the
DD weekly every week, and as far as I know so do you. So why would Egmont
make a magazine that we would buy? They KNOW that we devoted donaldists are
already buying the magazine that exists today! Aren't 50% of all the
subscribers over 18 years old? The weekly has in my opinion almost
everything we donaldists could ask for - lots and lots of great comics, and
sometimes good articles too. OK, there could be more of that - but from a
marketer's point of view, that would be useless as we're already buying the
weekly. What Donald Duck & Co really needs, is something that can make KIDS
and CHILDREN buy the magazine. Why? Because these kids have never been
introduced to the wonderful world of Carl Barks, and therefor have NO
reasons to buy the magazine. OK, so you and I may don't need those toys
much, but if DD&Co didn't have them, lots of children would prefer a
magazine who DOES (like Tom & Jerry), and these children would never meet
the great stories we grew up with and therefor never even have a CHANCE
becoming donaldists. Sure, it would be great to have what you call well
qualified stuff... but we don't really need it, do we? IMO, it's more
important that NEW generations get a chance to enjoy the Disney comics. As I
said - they may buy it for the toys, but they KEEP buying it for the comics.
Remove the toys, and they won't buy it in the first place, and therefor not
even KNOW that they should buy it for the comics.

Another problem is of course, as Don said;
> > If more people did that, maybe we could get
> > past the incorrect notion that comics are just
> > for children.
Of course I agree to this. I think that Disney comics should/could be for
kids, YES. But not JUST for kids, which is nothing but prejudice. Disney
comics fits EVERYBODY.



> If you want a Disney magazine for grown up people it should look like old
> Picsou Magazine and feature stories by artists like Barks, Rosa, Murry,
> Gottredson, Rota, Scarpa, Van Horn

...you mention a list of writers and artists here, but what about all other
writers and artists? Are you saying that the stories of todays weeklies, by
great talents like Vicar, Branca, Transgaartd, Gerstein, Hedman, McGreal,
McGreal, Gilbert, Korhonen, Laban and several others are rubbish? I find
all - or almost all - stories in the weeklies today GREAT. I don't really
care if a story is not written by Rosa, Rota, Scarpa or Barks - it's often a
GREAT story anyway. Donald Duck & Co most certainly features stories by
artists like Barks, Rosa, Murry, Gottfredson, Rota, Scarpa and Van Horn -
note the "like". As long as the weekly keep the quality it has today, I
certainly see no reason to complain about the  comics - even though not
every story is written by who you refer to as the elite.



> along with some local and young creators
> like Olaf Solstrand, Lars Jensen, etc.

Just a note: Can you PLEASE stop referring to me as one of the greatest
creators Scandinavia has ever seen? Just so you know: I'm not. You haven't
even READ my comics - and yet you keep on telling how Egmont shouldplace me
on a pedestal, publish books with my stories, that Gemstone should print my
stories and so on. Please have in mind that I'm NOT a new Don Rosa - but if
that is what you keep telling everybody, that is what everybody will expect,
and then I will not be able to fill their expectation, thus I'm doomed to
retire from Disney comics very early as I never will be able to manage to
fill the demands of people reading my stories expecting me to write better
stories than Barks and Rosa alltogether.



> Instead of kids-stuff the magazine
> should instead feature interesting
> readers letters and well qualified stuff
> about Disney creators, characters, etc.
>

Agreed, with one minor change - I want "well qualified stuff" ALONGSIDE
"kids-stuff" - not "instead of".



> So my conclusion is that as long as a magazine are made to be sold to
kids -
> it's probably fair to believe that it's just kids stuff.

For a shopkeeper that didn't grow up with Disney comics himself, indeed.
That is why we should make comics that will be read by ALL future shop
keepers - including those who want the magazine only for the toy or the
"Svinesen" pages. If they learn to grow up with Disney comics, they will
sure understand that Disney Comics are NOT kids stuff.



Olaf the Blue
-. --- -... --- -.. -.-- . -..- .--. . -.-. - ... - .... . ... .--. .- -. ..
... .... .. -. --.- ..- .. ... .. - .. --- -.