Jonathan H. Gray
jongraywb at hotmail.com
Wed May 17 22:31:18 CEST 2006
replying to several emails at once to save time:
>>>>Huck Akin's "The Oak Island Treasure," a Scrooge graphic novel
>announced by Disney (in 1991? I don't have my records here), was also
revived at Egmont, but shelved and never completed.
> Yeah, that jogged my memory. I remember suggesting to the sales and
marketing wizards that long stories would be a good thing to do. Maybe run
initially in several issues of one of the titles, then reprint the
hardback book form. I think some of them ran about 96 - 100 pages, but these
were fully fleshed out stories with great plots, sub-plots and tangential
character exposition. I'd forgotten about Huck Akin's "Oak Island Treasure."
remember he did a ton of research and came in with an exciting plot outline
that just had to be done.
That sounds really interesting to be honest. i would have been all over
something like that in a second. Its really a shame that its probably
sitting somewhere on a shelf in limbo. =\ For anyone in the know, who was
slated to draw it? I suppose the idea of bringing it out of limbo and
possibly reviving it for the prestige Scrooge books is out of order at this
time and date. Ah well... :(
the idea of Disney comics graphic novels - both original material and
reprint material - is actually a very ideal one IMO (and maybe more cost
effective than the old school oversized album prints in the long run). I've
seen a scant few bookstores that have already done this with the Prestige
books i.e. stacking them alongside graphic novels and whatnot. Thats why I'm
really hoping that the Treasures books and the DuckTales books will work in
the long run, so we can get more graphic novel style Disney material out in
the open. Who knows, maybe someday we can have long style original stories
printed in graphic novels here in the states again...
>Pat McGreal did one involving Hawaiian mythology that
I did see in print.
Really? what was the name of the story.
>I recall another story notion based on a Swing Music
orchestra contest involving a symphony-sized gathering of Beagle Boys
"Boogie Woogie Beagle Boys," but I don't know what happened with that.
Ha! That sounds like fun as well. :D
> I think the Disney "implosion" was more of a 1992 event and was one of
things that motivated my departure.
As one of the disney fans who was introduced to the books during your tenure
I was wondering where you had went after the line crumbled. :(
> As for "...so they could no longer afford to have the stories
grief! If the money controllers had just stood behind us and supported us,
we might have done some memorable, groundbreaking stuff. But, no... they
to squeeze us into monetary oblivion.
i've come to the conclusion in my very very *very* small time in the comic
book industry that its the corporate executive type that almost always kills
comic books if only because they don't seem to understand simple things we
in the real world like to call "common sense". Things that actually do make
sense are often "far too much like right" to go on ahead with. The worst
however comes from those corporate power happy types who micromanage the
creative process to insanely minute details, thus killing potentially
brilliant ideas before they can really even come to conception. Sad really.
>Gladstone operated for years on a
handful of dedicated and talented people in modest offices in an
(Arizona). Disney had about 35 people in some of the most expensive real
in Burbank, with computers (I didn't get one), secretaries (not me), and
supervisors (I had four).
And I think thats part of whats made Gemstone/Gladstone so successful: A
small close knit group of people who love what they do and aren't busy being
inflated on thier own egos. you don't have to modernize everything or change
the formula to everything to make it work. Sometimes if you're just genuine
about what you do and you do it RIGHT it shows and pays off. Even worse than
the oft-maligned Disney run, compare what Marvel Comics did to the Disney
Afternoon characters as opposed to what Disney did to the DA characters.
They turned the more interesting modern Disney characters into regurgitated
kiddie pap. If they'd gotten thier hands on the classic characters they'd
have probably maimed them into something unrocgnizable. Thankfully (if I
remember correctly) its a small blessing that Gladstone II had not quite
folded yet so they still had the classics liscence. My guess is that they
(Marvel) probably were trying to emulate DC's Looney Tunes/Scooby Doo line
but had no clue what they were doing (and it really showed too). Honestly i
think that the very short lived Marvel/Disney series did more damage to that
specific set of characters than the Disney company could have ever done. =\
>No wonder they couldn't afford to publish comics. My
favorite quote by one of the semi-suits - "Here at WD Publications,
building a publishing empire, we're building resumes." They saw Disney
Comics as a way to prove they could reduce budgets and still get the work
then used that skill to get jobs elsewhere.
typical suits in action. =\
> Hey, I'm just really curious here what the deal was
with the Disney-published comics circa 1990. As this
forum and others have demonstrated, there is a lot of
resentment, anger, and generally unhappy feelings
about Disney publishing.
I think a lot of it stems from two major things:
If you're a fan of the classic characters (for fun, let's call them Pre-80's
BGB - Before Gummi Bears ^__^), and an old school Disney fan - it really
does look as if they totally raked Gladstone over the coals. Here's this
small close company (Gladstone I) that basically revived the Disney liscence
from limbo all on thier own (not an easy feat). Disney sees this success,
says "Hey, we can do this ourselves and get more of a cut on this revenue!"
takes it, and tries to change the formula entirely (going back to "if it
aint broke don't fix it") - Goofy barely appeared as Goofy in his own book,
following on the heels of Gottfredson and Scarpa made Disne'ys "modernized
Mickey" look like bunk. And at first everything just came out garish. So
Disney realizes that maybe they bit off more than they can chew "imploding"
all books into 3 and shelving all the modern characters into 1 magazine
book. This fixes things temporarily but it still doesnt work. Disney then
tries to give the people what they want to some degree (what should have
been done at first) while still doing thier own thing. While they succeed in
many areas, ultimately they fail. Disney realizes they cant do it anymore,
and hands back over the semi-battered remains of the liscence back to the
company that originally made it work (Gladstone II). But the damage done to
the liscence is too much. Without a steady readership, most of the fan base
burnt out and wondering where the other characters are, and the industry
having changed tremendously since they'd started out - small company folds.
Then the entire line folds. Fast forward to reboot of line: take two
(Gemstone II) in which they must start all over again at rebuilding what
they once had from scratch.
Now if you're a fan of the Modern characters (Post 80's AGB - After Gummi
Bears ^__^) and new school Disney fan you got screwed over moreso. For the
most part, outside of the ever popular DuckTales, Gladstone didnt really
have much to do with the modern characters. Wuzzles had a few entries in
early G1 Comics and Stories, Gummi Bears was nowhere to be seen, and Pooh
Bear was always more of a classic character than a modern one depending on
your preference. So the INITIAL Disney line dealing with the "Disney
Afternoon" characters was a GODSEND. But it was inherently flawed. Disney
relied on Studio artists to get the bulk of thier work done on classics and
modern: specifically the oft-maligned Jaime Diaz studios. Some of them could
not do proper ducks and mice to save thier lives, and outside of perhaps
Cosme Quartieri on Duck Tales (who is a personal favorite of mine), the
Saavedra's on Rescue Rangers, and I know I'm forgetting one other whom I did
like - the majority of the Jaime Diaz studio artists were kinda crappy. =\
For things that were not studio work (such as Mickey Mouse or Roger Rabbit)
they expirimented with industry professionals who'd done superhero comics,
such as Marv Wolfman of Teen Titans doing the first 7 issue arc story for
Duck Tales (I still say it is a fact that The Gold Odyssey was 10 times
better and a hell of lot more readable and coherent than the very disjointed
"Scrooge's Quest" ever was - just cause Wolfman wrote it didnt make it any
good...) or Kurt Busiek doing an issue of Mickey Mouse or Sparky Moore on
Roger Rabbit. They also introduced the concept of overarching story arcs to
Disney comics (failing badly on Mickey Mouse but IMO succeeding very well
with Rescue Rangers which was, I think, a very strong book - I'd love to see
parts of that collected some day). And here is where the problem here came
in: basically a huge clash with the classic material. With the new material
it was OK to try out new things without stepping on what came before it, but
with the old material classic fans seemed a bit enraged and jaded that the
stuff that had been PROVEN to sell was being virtually ignored (just look at
the various Mickey Mouse and Goofy Adventures letter columns) .Then came the
implosion and all the modern characters were shuffled rather haphazardly
into the Disney Adventures books. Here went all this potential for new
characters and good storylines shunted into the back of a magazine that - as
time went on - devoted less and less space to then (now you can barely find
ANY actual Disney characters in DA). When the Disney line folded, Gladstone
got the classics back, but the DA characters went to Marvel where they took
good attempts at moden characters and turned them into (as I stated earlier)
"marvelous examples of vomitous kiddie pap".
Outside of DuckTales (and what seems to be a recent resurgence of Launchpad)
- all hopes of seeing the modern characters get the same respect that the
classics vanished into thin air. Here is an entire gamut of fun characters
that intoduced many modern fans to the classics, that will never get a
chance to be the next Scamps, Bucky Bugs, Chip and Dale, or 'Lil Bad Wolfs.
and you cant even use Comics and Stories - what has always been the variety
showcase book - to showcase these characters because the liscences for said
characters cant be obtained by the people who HAVE done the classic
If you're old you're bitter at them. If you're new you're bitter at them. If
you're a creator you're bitter at them. long story short: EVERYBODY BOT GOT
SCREWED AND EVERYBODY'S BITTER! YAY, LETS HAVE A COOKIE!!! :D :D :D :D
>Don Rosa also once wrote that he only did
"The Money Pit" (the story in the first Disney issue
of "Donald Duck Adventures") as a goodwill gesture.
considering the tone of this whole conversation and whats been said about
Disney by people in the know, maybe a title such as "The Money Pit" ended up
actually being more of a jab than anyone might have guessed... ;)
> It's funny, because I was introduced to Disney
character comics in 1990 with the beginning of this
run, and I thought they were fantastic. Good paper,
good coloring, great stories (so I thought, anyway).
Ditto. I like some of what they did and dont think all of it was bad.
Without them I wouldnt know who Carl Barks was or why DuckTales was so
They were almost completely responsible for the
appreciation I currently hold for the comics of Donald
Duck, Uncle Scrooge, and so on.
its like that for many. Surprisingly, most people I know still miss the old
stuff and are under the crazy assumption that the line is still gone. It
takes time to rebuild a fan base that was pretty much scattered to the
Jonathan H. Gray
More information about the DCML