Egmont's image

[Daniel van Eijmeren]

LARS JENSEN to JANO ROHLEDER, 21-04-2005:

> So to sum up: Gemstone are cheapskates, and I and most other Egmont
> creators who work on the pocketbook stories are hacks, non-talents
> and/or idiots. And you give Bancells an honorary mention.

DONALD MARKSTEIN to JANO ROHLEDER, 25-04-2005:

> So, we Egmont Mickey writers aren't necessarily idiots or untalented, we 
> just do idiotic things which are characteristic of untalented people.

There are quite a lot of complaints about Egmont stories, also here in The 
Netherlands. There are many exceptions, but still Egmont has this overall 
image. Their art is unspired. Their stories are weak. Their colors are ugly. 
How come?

Remarkably, Egmont stories vary from Vicar to Daniel Branca to Daan Jippes. 
So, how come that Egmont still has the image of a mass producer of easy 
faceless stories, rolling from an assembly line?

And why do all the stories get that horrible chemical coloring? Even the 
Barks/Jippes-stories look as if they taking place on a strange faraway 
planet.

Why does Egmont have a bad reputation for many readers?

--- Daniël

"All this GOOD LUCK comes from having a MASCOT!"
(Which Barks story?) :-)