Comics UK

The idiots at the Sunday Mirror seem to think that The Beano launched before the Dandy!


Not aware of any reprints? Did they bother doing any research at all? Issue 1 was reprinted just last year.

I never realised that the Beano began in 1936. How foolish of me to not realise that. Despite the fact that he has an image of Beano No 1 showing the date as 1938 in the flaming article, they never even bothered correcting their proof copy.

Yeah... should I add this to the Critical Research Failure page at TV Tropes? Because their research was a total fail. How they got the date wrong when they used a scan of the first front cover which quite clearly says 1938, I don't understand.

It just shows that they don't research facts properly before they write them down.

It's like when they keep saying Desperate Dan doesn't eat cow pies anymore

Gilly wrote:It just shows that they don't research facts properly before they write them down.

It's like when they keep saying Desperate Dan doesn't eat cow pies anymore

I think cow pies were banned for a few years but are back now,but i could be wrong and may have dreamed the whole thing.

Gilly wrote:It's like when they keep saying Desperate Dan doesn't eat cow pies anymore

I remember something in the paper about it years ago, but I don't actually remember it happening in the comic.

I think there was once a 'Desperate Dan banned from eating cow pies' story, which included an image of a very up to date version of Dan (as he was when the new story was running) eating a cow pie!

I'm sure it never actually happened, but was just a story made up by tabloid journalists in an attempt to anger people like the Beano Review guy into taking a backlash against the current Beano and Dandy, in spite of all the great strips and artists in the comics.

Jonny Whizz wrote:I think there was once a 'Desperate Dan banned from eating cow pies' story, which included an image of a very up to date version of Dan (as he was when the new story was running) eating a cow pie!

Correct. They even claimed he left the comic in 1997!

Thing is it said the old Dan was the cartoony one drawn by Ken Harrison and the new Dan was the detailed one by Ken Harrison (but another artist for the cover I think) for the Dandy Annual 2005, saying he's soft because he's holding a snowglobe. *facepalm*

Dan did briefly leave the comic in 1997 though - it was around the time of the Dandy's 60th birthday. I think the story was that Dan struck oil, became rich and left the Dandy. Over the next couple of weeks various characters trialled for taking over the comic's cover (including Cuddles and Dimples, who ousted Dan in 1999), before Dan returned to the comic.

I'm not absolutely certain but I think those issues might have been only the only Dandy issues between the first one in 1937 and the Xtreme revamp where Dan didn't appear at all, though I seem to recall reading on this forum that in one of the 2004-2007 issues he wasn't given a strip, only appearing in a puzzle.

Whoever wrote that holding a snowglobe makes him soft has got a lot to answer for though. Doh!

Jonny Whizz wrote:Dan did briefly leave the comic in 1997 though - it was around the time of the Dandy's 60th birthday. I think the story was that Dan struck oil, became rich and left the Dandy. Over the next couple of weeks various characters trialled for taking over the comic's cover (including Cuddles and Dimples, who ousted Dan in 1999), before Dan returned to the comic.

I'm not absolutely certain but I think those issues might have been only the only Dandy issues between the first one in 1937 and the Xtreme revamp where Dan didn't appear at all, though I seem to recall reading on this forum that in one of the 2004-2007 issues he wasn't given a strip, only appearing in a puzzle.

We can at least say that he was in the comic though (puzzle or not).
It's the way they worded it, "Dan disappeared from the comic in 1997 but was reinstated three years later following a fierce backlash. Morris Heggie, who was editor until last year, admitted the character had undergone many changes."

Read the whole flippin' article here if you really want to... : http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... z1b9QD7R7U

Right, they got confused there. Someone didn't do their research - he was briefly dropped from the cover in 1999-2000, which I assume is what they're referring to.

I might add that was an article from the Daily Mail, which in my experience tends to be one of the worst for sensationalising news stories in general, and especially ones. In my opinion the quality papers tend to have better informed (if not always factually accurate) articles on comics, and seem more respectful towards comics as a medium - remember the Guardian giving away fascimiles of old comics a couple of years ago? The tabloids usually only bother with comics if there's either something they can turn into a scandal, such as the fuss made over Uh, Oh Si Co, or if celebs appear, like the reports stating that 'the new Dandy will contain lots of new characters including Jeremy Clarkson and Noel Edmunds'.

The Guardian can be just as self-serving when it comes to old story papers, though. They are almost obliged to bash out a paraphrasing of George Orwells article about them from 1939 every year. It's clear none of them have ever read one, but then again most of the readers of the article will ever read one either.

Anyway I'm going to bung this article on my blog. I might start a new series of posts called "This is why our comics are vanishing" every time these nonsense articles come up.