Comics UK

I'm one of those people who used to hate Don Heck's Marvel work in the sixties and seventies and remember Marvel defending him against the critics. I now realise he was a pretty good artist and storyteller but just wasn't flamboyant like my favourites Kane, Steranko, Infantino etc. But he got the job done and didn't miss deadlines. And probably a nice hardworking bloke.

Tin Can Tommy wrote:

Raven wrote:I can't immediately remember Nuke Noodle but I'm bemused that the Mr. Meecher artwork could be described as similar in any way whatsoever to David Law's. Law, in his prime, drew some of the most innovative, stunning pages of humour comic artwork ever. Look at the dynamic, pioneering use of perspective in his classic work. There's no comparison.

i meant in that they both similiarly drew characters at least they look that way to me. They're not that similiar but there are similarities. but not in (as you say) the dynamic, pioneering use of perspective in his classic work more in simply the way characters are drawn.

I can only imagine you might be referring to one of the periods of Law's artwork when overworked and stressed by the weekly production line pressure, and not necessarily in the best of health, his characters became elongated and a bit strange looking, and his artwork only a sketchy shadow of his glory years - but even then, the only comparison I could make between Law's and the Meecher artwork is that they've both appeared in comics.

stevezodiac wrote:I'm one of those people who used to hate Don Heck's Marvel work in the sixties and seventies and remember Marvel defending him against the critics. I now realise he was a pretty good artist and storyteller but just wasn't flamboyant like my favourites Kane, Steranko, Infantino etc. But he got the job done and didn't miss deadlines. And probably a nice hardworking bloke.

Sal Buscema is one of those very solid artists who was great at storytelling but underrated because his work wasn't particularly flamboyant or "flavour of the month" - and I think his Marvel work has stood up better than, say, one of the "hip" fan favourites of the time like Todd McFarlane.

Raven wrote:It is a deep question, but I think it's on topic here! (snipped for space)

So... you're advocating the idea of an aesthetic continuum with extremes of right and wrong, defined in relation to universal principles which you deny are so culturally specific as to be meaningless, and reinforced with reference to 'what's good for the industry'? ...Maybe we're arguing over differing definitions of conservative?

Raven wrote:Another thing: say someone looks at Ken Reid's Odhams peak in the 60s as a high plateau for comic art, then looks at one of the more extremely "primitive"/simplistic strips that exists today, and despairs ... could you actually say a fan of Ken Reid's Odhams freakery is "conservative" in their tastes?

Look, I think it's simple. Ken Reid was a genius, but even if he was around today and in his prime and drew a hoodie with an iPhone happy slapping Simon Cowell, however gratifying that image would be, I'm guessing it would still look old fashioned and not in a good way. A great cartoonist reflects and taps into the world around him. Old styles die because they become genre specific, they have cultural baggage, they become cliche ridden, they reach a natural plateau and they become fusty. New artists push in different directions - some of these styles are embryonic, some of them reject old artistic certainties. I admit, public acceptance may be slow, which is a real problem in the unforgiving world of commercial art. And, of course, this is why those that believe all art should be commercially viable are Philistines.

The Dandy is a crazy bag of modern art styles and it's a tragedy that it hasn't reached more readers. And Nuke Noodle hit a new high this week, everyone should go read it...now!

-MikeD- wrote:Look, I think it's simple. Ken Reid was a genius, but even if he was around today and in his prime and drew a hoodie with an iPhone happy slapping Simon Cowell, however gratifying that image would be, I'm guessing it would still look old fashioned and not in a good way.

Makes you wonder why Disney, Pixar and Paramount's animated feature films don't also look like Mr Meecher nowadays, doesn't it?

-MikeD- wrote: New artists push in different directions - some of these styles are embryonic, some of them reject old artistic certainties.

Though you wouldn't see Disney reinterpret their classic characters in a complete cut-all-ties-with-the-past way, would you: a new fat, sleazy looking Donald Duck, or a stick figure Mickey Mouse, or the like ... because they recognise the strength and value of their timeless, iconic images and also, I suspect, because they respect and care a lot for their characters.

Seriously, the idea of The Dandy as a comic equivalent of an experimental modern art museum may be interesting (probably mostly to adults) and artistically valid, but with a children's fun comic what's paramount is, as an ideal, the timeless qualities: strong concepts, strong comedy writing, tight dialogue and scripts, easy to follow dynamic storytelling that gives a sense of excitement just looking at it - for which impeccable draughtsmanship really helps, big gags, and big punchlines.

A comic for tens and under isn't an ideal experimental art zone - because certain types of art, particularly simplistic, flat-looking types that don't employ much perspective, aren't necessarily best for that kind of dynamic, visual storytelling that will hook kids, as I recall you admitting, yourself* (as I've said, a fair few features in Dandy tend to have characters being rather static, standing around talking to each other for panel after panel, their in-need-of-editing-down speech balloons sometimes obscuring much of the art anyway).

(* EDIT: actually, you may have been referring to constant hyper-cartoonishness.)

But if it works, it works. Jamie Smart's best stuff works perfectly - he's clearly got "funny bones" - which is all too rare a quality. Funny writing. Funny art. Wildly imaginative. Dynamic flow.

-MikeD- wrote:And, of course, this is why those that believe all art should be commercially viable are Philistines.

Dandy does need to be commercially viable though, doesn't it?

-MikeD- wrote:a hoodie with an iPhone happy slapping Simon Cowell

In my experience a minimum of two people are required for this task, one to carry out the happy slapping and somebody else to film it.

Phoenix wrote:

-MikeD- wrote:a hoodie with an iPhone happy slapping Simon Cowell

In my experience a minimum of two people are required for this task, one to carry out the happy slapping and somebody else to film it.

I'd never have pegged you as getting up to that sort of thing, Phoenix. But we live and learn.

Raven wrote:I'd never have pegged you as getting up to that sort of thing, Phoenix. But we live and learn.

It was more a question of catching the little devils in flagranti, Raven, then getting them into the sin bin while we phoned the parents, and once everything had settled down, we could take the confiscated phone to the staff room where we could enjoy watching the happy slapping in peace, making comments like, It's about time somebody took her down a peg or two, she's been a right little madam all this term.

Raven wrote: Makes you wonder why Disney, Pixar and Paramount's animated feature films don't also look like Mr Meecher nowadays, doesn't it?

Not really. I'm sure if Mr Meecher spent a few months in pre-production with a design crew of 5 or 6 you might get something different. I don't think the budget can stretch to that though.

Mr Meecher is most like "The Regular Show" on cartoon network.

If you look at the popular cartoons out there these days Regular show, sponge bob, kick buttowski, adventure time, the amazing world of gumball. You can find cartoons that look a bit like strips in the Dandy.

And I'm pretty sure if you go on Disney film forums you find a load of complaints about how the latest film looks rubbish compared to something made 20' 30 years ago.

Nigel Auchterlounie wrote: And I'm pretty sure if you go on Disney film forums you find a load of complaints about how the latest film looks rubbish compared to something made 20' 30 years ago.

Yes, because people who'd criticise current things are no different than people who've always complained that things are rubbish compared to those made 20 or 30 years ago. That's a stance which, again, renders current things conveniently beyond criticism.


Old styles, Mike says "die because they become genre specific, they have cultural baggage, they become cliche ridden, they reach a natural plateau and they become fusty."

And yet it seems to be the timeless classics of the past that return to entertain generation after generation, whereas the things intended to be as contemporary and "down wiv da kids" as possible - anyone remember Yo Yogi? - tend to go out of circulation and be forgotten, sometimes remembered only as an embarrassing abberation.

It's interesting to ponder, at least, on what those timeless qualities are.



PS: Mike, I like your Roachford strip. Are you putting any more of those up?

Raven wrote: Yes, because people who'd criticise current things are no different than people who've always complained that things are rubbish compared to those made 20 or 30 years ago. That's a stance which, again, renders current things conveniently beyond criticism.

Yes you're right Raven. It is quite a lazy argument on my half.
I'm gonna say "you got me" on that one. And not use it again.

My kids like Tom and Jerry too. They love the proper old ones, (not the ones made in the 60s)
They also love Chowder, the Regular show and Phineas and Ferb. So they are capable of appreciating several different art styles.

Where does that leave us?

If poor sales are down to "bad" art then how would you explain Lew Stringer? He draws for the most and least successful comics and uses the same art style for both?
--------------------------------------------
Here we go everyone. I will now "bring it"
--------------------------------------------
Dandy sales are down 48 percent which means they are selling more comics now than they did before the revamp!

They're down 48 percent, which leaves 52 percent, but they also went from once every other week to weekly. Double 52 is 104 percent. A rise of 4 percent. So monthly they're moving more copies than they used to.

The problem with Stats is that you can often write your own headline depending on how you felt about the subject prior to the new knowledge. Using the same numbers you can say Dandy sales down 48% or you can say Dandy sales up 4%

If the revamp changed one single thing then you would be able blame that on a change in sales, but more than one thing changed so that muddies the waters.
-------------------------
What happened was they went from 2 issues a month to 4 issues a month but monthly sales have rose only slightly. Which means that there's only a finite amount of money out there to be had. In these times of financial troubles, that feels right doesn't it?
-------------------------
You can't really say that either though, because the other huge thing that happened was they ditched the "free" toy thing and did away with the bag. So if you want to you can look at the 48% down fact and pair it with the no toy fact, and say half of kids these days go off the free toy on the front. Humm, that feels right too.
-------------------------
We are not politicians there's no one problem and there's no one solution.

The Dandy and DC Thomson are to be commended. For their bravery. Dropping the free toys from the cover requires huge planet size balls of steel.
I believe it is this more than anything that has had an impact. One of my children only goes off the toy on the front.

There's now a toy on the front of some Dandy issues so I'll be watching with interest what happens.

If you sell 4% more issues a month but you've managed to do it whilst dropping the free toy from the cover (and the bagging) then you're winning aren't you?

Yes of course you are... but the cover price dropped too at the same time. does all that mean that the Dandy is no better or worse off?

That could well be the case.
-------------------------
I used to Get Nutty when I was a kid.
One strip I never really liked was Gordon Bells Scoopy strip. I didn't like the free, scrappy, sketchiness of it.
Then I remember in one issue a drawing of a 2CV slamming on the breaks. It was a three quarter shot from the back. It was leaning right forward with all the suspension up (leaf springs?)
Weird, I know. But then I loved it. I dug up all my old issues and reveled in the style.

Nigel Auchterlounie wrote: Dandy sales are down 48 percent which means they are selling more comics now than they did before the revamp!

They're down 48 percent, which leaves 52 percent, but they also went from once every other week to weekly. Double 52 is 104 percent. A rise of 4 percent. So monthly they're moving more copies than they used to.

The problem with Stats is that you can often write your own headline depending on how you felt about the subject prior to the new knowledge. Using the same numbers you can say Dandy sales down 48% or you can say Dandy sales up 4%

If the revamp changed one single thing then you would be able blame that on a change in sales, but more than one thing changed so that muddies the waters.
-------------------------
What happened was they went from 2 issues a month to 4 issues a month but monthly sales have rose only slightly. Which means that there's only a finite amount of money out there to be had. In these times of financial troubles, that feels right doesn't it?
-------------------------
You can't really say that either though, because the other huge thing that happened was they ditched the "free" toy thing and did away with the bag. So if you want to you can look at the 48% down fact and pair it with the no toy fact, and say half of kids these days go off the free toy on the front. Humm, that feels right too.
-------------------------
We are not politicians there's no one problem and there's no one solution.

The Dandy and DC Thomson are to be commended. For their bravery. Dropping the free toys from the cover requires huge planet size balls of steel.
I believe it is this more than anything that has had an impact. One of my children only goes off the toy on the front.

There's now a toy on the front of some Dandy issues so I'll be watching with interest what happens.

If you sell 4% more issues a month but you've managed to do it whilst dropping the free toy from the cover (and the bagging) then you're winning aren't you?

Yes of course you are... but the cover price dropped too at the same time. does all that mean that the Dandy is no better or worse off?

That could well be the case.

Aren't the ABC figures the average sales per issue, regardless of the the frequency? In which case, everything you just said is moot.

Digifiend wrote:

Nigel Auchterlounie wrote: Dandy sales are down 48 percent which means they are selling more comics now than they did before the revamp!

Hmmm...interesting way of looking at the figures.

For anyone who is interested, the last three ABC circulation certs for The Dandy, covering the period of the reboot, are available online...
http://www.abc.org.uk/Certificates/16877476.pdf
http://www.abc.org.uk/Certificates/17152574.pdf
http://www.abc.org.uk/Certificates/17417642.pdf

Average sales per issue have halved. Half as many actual readers.

It may be true that issue sales over a month are steady - but production costs have all but doubled, so half the profit.

Basically...The Dandy needs more readers unless ABC have got their figures wrong.

Raven wrote: PS: Mike, I like your Roachford strip. Are you putting any more of those up?

Really glad you liked it. I've a dozen or so written and ready to draw if I can find time or, better still, a publisher.

Sad to say, from the anecdotal evidence on this forum it does seem as if kids are more interested in the plastic tat than the comic.

It's easy to judge art styles, because they're usually subjective, frequently arouse great passion in both camps, and because so many new ones were introduced in the revamp. But it's not what sells a comic - good comics make you laugh, or at least get you engaged in the story, and are powered by strong characters.

In the case of modern cartoons, there again we get to the art vs. story debate. If you've caught snatches of a cartoon occasionally, or seen stills on the web, it's so quick and easy to say, "God, that looks dreadful." But if you actually sit down and watch a cartoon, and it succeeds in keeping you coming back for more, in time the only quality you will judge is the strength of its storytelling.

There may well be a lot of cartoons with nasty modern art styles which kids pass over for stuff from the 50s - but do you think that's because of the art? Is it not more likely that there are a lot of bad cartoons out there built on nothing more than wafer-thin plots, bargain-basement actors, two-dimensional (in every sense) characters, and five minutes brainstorming with a focus group of 50-year-old self-styled "kid gurus"?

On the flip side, Looney Tunes and Tom & Jerry may be two cartoons out of the 40s and 50s which everyone's heard of, but how many cartoons, precisely, do you think were churned out of animation studios during that period? How many of these characters have sunk without trace? Is it not likely that they suffered the same problems - and same eventual fate - of the Saturday morning electronic kid-quieteners of the 21st century? The existence of popular, long-running, well-known and modern cartoon series (such as the Simpsons and Phineas and Ferb), as well as their rarity, does not prove the line of argument that animation was better in the 'Golden Age' - on the contrary, it is the most obvious counterexample.

Quality, in itself, may not sell - the Dandy is sadly a testament to that - but the lack of it will reliably fail to sell. Even all those licensed Ben 10 magazines and annuals, while they may not have intrinsic value, are doing so well precisely because they're piggybacking off a modern cartoon which has proved to be hugely successful and enduring, and it would never have done that if it was just as bad as its competition.

And now for the obligatory argument terminator, which in this particular case simultaneously happens to serve as a definitive refutal of the theory that, in comics, the art is more important in determining popularity than the script: