This week's issue Take 3

[AndyB]

New thread. Please keep this to the matter in hand - discussing the content of the week's Beano.

If you can't be constructive, please use the Report Post button and/or take it to private messages. Remember there are other users who are being actively discouraged from coming near this forum by the tone being set.

I do need to emphasise something: the Beano is a comic for kids. It will be measured on that basis, not on whether people in their 40s and 50s think it is any good. As a commercial organisation, DC Thomson is not responsible for making the Beano or Dandy more attractive to anyone over the age of 11 than is necessary to persuade them to buy it for their own kids. I don't therefore consider that anyone is in a position to dismiss the content of a comic as a pile of *anything* unless they can round up a pile of kids in the target audience to do so.

Further to that, and to put something to rest for once and for all: we know the biggest reason why the print Dandy of 2010 failed, and it has been the accepted wisdom on this site since 2010: a catastrophic marketing failure that failed to capitalise on the relaunch.

So let's get back to discussing whether the strips are any good, taking into account the balance between script and artwork, and whether there are enough of them and they are the right ones in the right mix.

[Kid Robson]

Andy, perhaps you could move Ginger's post (the last one before yours) to this thread as it was on-topic and I was about to reply to it.

However, as for your comment that The Beano is a comic for kids and should be measured on that level - if that's the case, is there really any point in adults even talking about why they enjoy it? (Or not.) And how can we discuss whether the scripts are any good when you seem to be telling us that the opinions of 40 and 50 year olds don't count and clamping down on us when anyone expresses a dislike about a strip? Unless you expect us to restrict ourselves to talking about what our offspring, nieces and nephews think of the comic.

Also, as for the "accepted wisdom" as to the fate of The Dandy - accepted by whom? Although the failure to capitalise on the relaunch was certainly a factor in its demise, it wasn't the only (or even the main) one, in my view. (Otherwise sales wouldn't have initially increased after the relaunch.) It's certainly not a 'wisdom' accepted (as a complete explanation) by me and many others, so I do hope that we are not expected to kowtow to a view we don't necessarily share.

Also, I find it strange that those who claim they are being discouraged from coming near this forum because of 'the tone being set' seem to comment only when there is some kind of stushie. They're usually absent the rest of the time. And if they're not coming near, how do they know what's going on?

Asked in an honest spirit of enquiry.

[AndyB]

Ginger can repost it if he wishes.

[Ginger]

No problem! :-

Kid Robson wrote:
"It shouldn't be too hard to do a Beano that would appeal to people of our age (big kids) and kids of today."

I happen to think that's exactly what they're trying to do. The new Ball Boy, for example, could almost run in Viz. It's very funny. Unfortunately, it's not well drawn. The traditional Beano strips were never really funny, but beautifully drawn.

I think there's actually a general trend which extends beyond comics and into more general cartooning, illustration and children's books; towards cruder artwork. It's hip not to be able to draw, apparently. Have a flick through a recent copy of Private Eye or The Spectator. Or have a look at Cressida Cowell's illustrations for her How To Train Your Dragon books.

I think it's a result of the success of Quentin Blake and the like. By the way, I'm not saying Blake can't draw, but editors don't seem to be able to distinguish between the genius of his untutored line, and someone who really is just scrawling away. Either that, or they just don't care any more because as I said, cruder styles are 'in'.

The idea, the writing, is king nowadays. I do think the Beano is funnier than it ever was, but I don't see why we can't have both:- Funny strips with great artwork. Let the funny writers write, but give the scripts to a decent artist. Everyone wins.

Well, that's my forpen'orth, anyway.

[Kid Robson]

No problem! :-

Kid Robson wrote:
"It shouldn't be too hard to do a Beano that would appeal to people of our age (big kids) and kids of today."

I happen to think that's exactly what they're trying to do. The new Ball Boy, for example, could almost run in Viz. It's very funny. Unfortunately, it's not well drawn. The traditional Beano strips were never really funny, but beautifully drawn.

I think there's actually a general trend which extends beyond comics and into more general cartooning, illustration and children's books; towards cruder artwork. It's hip not to be able to draw, apparently. Have a flick through a recent copy of Private Eye or The Spectator. Or have a look at Cressida Cowell's illustrations for her How To Train Your Dragon books.

I think it's a result of the success of Quentin Blake and the like. By the way, I'm not saying Blake can't draw, but editors don't seem to be able to distinguish between the genius of his untutored line, and someone who really is just scrawling away. Either that, or they just don't care any more because as I said, cruder styles are 'in'.

The idea, the writing, is king nowadays. I do think the Beano is funnier than it ever was, but I don't see why we can't have both:- Funny strips with great artwork. Let the funny writers write, but give the scripts to a decent artist. Everyone wins.

Well, that's my forpen'orth, anyway.

Ginger, I'm not sure about it being funnier than it's ever been - mainly because some of the bad artwork deters me from reading some strips, although the ones I do sometimes read seem only so-so to me. Also, some of the Davey Law Dennis strips back in the '50s and '60s were mighty funny, and I have my suspicions that the modern ones don't live up to them. However, I agree with just about everything else you said, especially about editors and funny strips and great artwork.

[AndyB]

I'm going to ask that replies to Ginger stick to the subject of the Beano, but it would be worth someone starting new threads over in General Comics Discussion> on the subject of whether comics should be mass appeal or targeted, and the balance in all comics between artwork and script.

In a Beano context, I think that's exactly the line they've gone down. To that extent, it's a little reminiscent of the days of text stories, where the writing was very much king, but it's equally worth saying that people drawing with as much detail as Ken Reid were very much the exception. The Beano of the 70s was a paradise of women with no need for bras (other than Roger's mum), plain backgrounds and very few easter eggs like Tom Paterson's socks, side jokes etc, thus relying on tight scripting.

[Ginger]

Kid, you're right of course, some of the old stuff was funny (and also some of the old artwork wasn't that great!)
I suppose I was talking general trends rather than hard and fast rules.

Andy, I don't think highly detailed drawing is necessarily what I was talking about. I love Ken Reid's work, sure, but another big favourite of mine was David Law, who, I agree, didn't go in much for backgrounds. You could argue, I dare say, that Law wasn't the most accomplished artist around, but there was something very likeable about his style. Like Quentin Blake, it was 'untutored', but somehow adorable.

[WizzKid97]

I think The Beano is funnier than ever currently, and I find the artwork helps to make the stories even funnier.

I don't think there's such thing as bad artwork - it's like the old saying goes, "beauty is in the eye of the beholder". Personally I love the new Beano artistry taking place currently and think whilst Ball Boy is drawn differently to before, it's still well-drawn and suits the wild storylines. Traditional artwork can sometimes be jarring with modern humour (which is partly the reason why The Bash Street Kids making Gangnam Style references just feels odd!) - modern artwork suits modern themes far better. Not all the time, but in my opinion, more often than not.

The artwork nowadays is just different, and some people do not like things being different to the way they liked them. Older readers can probably relate to the artistry of David Sutherland and Nigel Parkinson far more than they can to Alexander Matthews or Jamie Smart - but the younger readers (which The Beano is aimed at) can relate to this new modern artwork because its from their time.

I can relate to both traditional and modern artwork because I learnt to draw through traditional cartooning techniques before moving to a more modern style. I think people just need to remember that the artwork is for the current young generation, not for the previous one.

[Gilly]

I suppose it could even be argued that there is no such thing as a traditional art style in The Beano as art styles have changed over the years and many artists have all had their own unique style. It's not something that's just started happening it's just part of the natural evolution The Beano has been going through over the years in my opinion.

[Kid Robson]

It's a bit too simple an outlook to say that things are just different and that there is no good or bad (but thinking makes it so), not just in art, but in anything. Standards in just about everything have become relaxed to the point of absurdity these days, and Ginger was spot on in his assessment about editors and artists. The simple fact is, loath as I am to say it (and loathed as I will be for saying it), some people just don't have the critical faculty to distinguish between good and bad art, in my famously humble but informed opinion.

Case in point: I once did a comic strip for a local business to appear in the weekly newspaper (and elsewhere). Then someone else did a strip for another local business. It was drawn by a schoolboy and was an extremely unpolished Don Martin rip-off that showed promise, but was far from professional. However, the businessman I had drawn a strip for just couldn't distinguish between them - to him, the styles and the execution appeared exactly the same. (Trust me, they weren't.) Also, there have been occasions when I have done hastily drawn scribbles for people who have waxed enthusiastically about them - even 'though they were nothing special.

It seems to be that anyone who can look at the work of Baxendale, Watkins, Reid, Harrison, etc., and then say that some of the work that appears in comics today is 'equal but different' is lacking the required critical faculty to tell the difference between what is great and what is passable, what works and what doesn't - and, quite simply, what is good and what is bad.

Unfortunately, far too many of them are becoming editors in the comicbook biz - at least, that's how it appears to me.

[Digifiend]

I suppose it could even be argued that there is no such thing as a traditional art style in The Beano as art styles have changed over the years and many artists have all had their own unique style. It's not something that's just started happening it's just part of the natural evolution The Beano has been going through over the years in my opinion.

Indeed. Allan Morley's artwork looks very of it's time these days (in the 30s and 40s he was highly regarded, but in the 50s he was phased out, his work looking stiff compared to David Law and Leo Baxendale's), and modern artists don't attempt the same level of detail as Dudley Watkins did (indeed, Jamie Smart is pretty much the complete opposite, going for exaggerations instead of realistic proportions - a contrast well shown by Desperate Dan). But just because it's different, doesn't make it bad. The Beano moves with the times, and so it should!

[Gilly]

Exactly Digi and to add to that, some long running artists have also changed their styles over the years to try and keep up to date.

A good example would be that David Sutherland now draws The Bash Street Kids quite differently to how he did when he first drew them in the 60s.

[Kid Robson]

While it's true that some 'well-drawn' artwork from a previous era may look 'dated', I would suggest that it doesn't necessarily mean that all contemporary art is merely 'modern' or 'different' and equally as well-drawn. I believe that it's a fact that one of the 'modern' trends of current comics is to go for a basic, roughly-hewn look that some editors believe to be 'radical', 'individual' and 'of the moment'. If it's not adequately fulfilling the requirements of sequential storytelling 'though, it's not good, in my view. What some people get mixed up on is that many old strips reflect the times in which they were drawn as far as cars, fashion and hairstyles go. That's the only thing that, arguably, makes them look dated in some people's eyes. If George Martin was still drawing today, and reflecting the fashions and styles of the present, I don't believe that his art would look dated in the slightest. When one measures the classic Tom & Jerry cartoons of the '40s & '50s against their later 'modern' incarnations from the '60s, the newer ones pale in comparison. 'Modern' doesn't necessarily mean 'good' - or, in the case of this discussion, 'as good as'.

[Digifiend]

Storytelling? Shouldn't that be related to the writing, not the art? Anyway, what did you think of this week's issue? Because that's what this thread is meant to be about.

[Kid Robson]

Storytelling? Shouldn't that be related to the writing, not the art? Anyway, what did you think of this week's issue? Because that's what this thread is meant to be about.

I was referring to visual storytelling, which I thought was obvious as we're discussing artwork. As for this week's issue, to which my observations also applied (as well as in a general sense), I thought it needed a striking image on the third page to hit readers in the eyes once past the cover, rather than mere space-fillers on pages 2 & 3. Also, some of the art seemed a bit 'flat', not having the depth of more accomplished artists, and two pages in particular continue to disappoint. Especially the lettering, which is far too prominent and leaves the artwork fighting for space.