In this thread, please write about any occasion you know of when Disney comic editors or publishers in any country ruined (or at least diminished) a Disney comic with an asinine decision. I'll start:
The Dutch publishers are notorious for thinking they know better than the artists whose comics they are publishing. Don Rosa has extensively talked about this over the years. I'll just mention one occasion when they ruined a comic. Look at what they did to Carl Barks' one-pager, "Mush": BEFORE vs AFTER They rearranged the panels and put borders around them, probably to make the comic more "standard" looking, and with those changes completely ruined the original mood of the comic. It's incredibly infuriating! Not to mention that they first did it in 1986, when Barks was already well-known. So they not only decided to "correct" a random Disney comic, they decided to "correct" a Carl Barks one! Who does that?? If I could go back in time, I would go to their office in 1986, find the person who was responsible for this "correction", shake them and then ask them what on earth they were thinking.
Western Publishing did a ton of damage to US Disney comics in the 70s and 80s in particular. Maybe most of all for letting the quality of their comics output sink so low and be content with it. Instead of attracting and hiring new talent, they kept churning out dull, generic stuff drawn by Strobl, Murry and the like, with stupid, childish writing to boot. And of course, sales gradually slunk lower and lower. Disney comics in the States still haven't recovered from that damage to their popularity.
I'll just mention one occasion when [the Dutch publishers] ruined a comic. Look at what they did to Carl Barks' one-pager, "Mush": BEFORE vs AFTER They rearranged the panels and put borders around them, probably to make the comic more "standard" looking, and with those changes completely ruined the original mood of the comic. It's incredibly infuriating! Not to mention that they first did it in 1986, when Barks was already well-known. So they not only decided to "correct" a random Disney comic, they decided to "correct" a Carl Barks one! Who does that?? If I could go back in time, I would go to their office in 1986, find the person who was responsible for this "correction", shake them and then ask them what on earth they were thinking.
Could you perhaps elaborate on *why* the comics would be 'completely ruined', other than just because it's different than Barks wanted it to be? Why is the original presentation in this case so important? And why is it even worse now that they could have known that it was made by Barks?
Your post reads as a rant to publishers making any change to artwork of Barks, only because it was made by Barks, instead of saying something about the actual presentation, gags thay became lost in translating or storylines that would not work anymore.
I was going to comment something along these lines. It also seems to me in bad faith, as well as in bad taste.
I really don't now how to respond to that. I make a post about cultural vandalism and you criticize my post instead of what those publishers did. What do you think is the approprite response to cultural vandalism? Or do you think it's perfectly fine what those Dutch publishers did (again, the "Mush" example was just that, ONE example)?
Could you perhaps elaborate on *why* the comics would be 'completely ruined', other than just because it's different than Barks wanted it to be? Why is the original presentation in this case so important? And why is it even worse now that they could have known that it was made by Barks?
Your post reads as a rant to publishers making any change to artwork of Barks, only because it was made by Barks, instead of saying something about the actual presentation, gags thay became lost in translating or storylines that would not work anymore.
I am completely stunned by your reply. ""just because it's different than Barks wanted it to be" Isn't that more than enough reason? "Why is the original presentation in this case so important?" Because when it comes to art, the original presentation always has paramount importance. No publisher has any moral right to alter a finished piece of art. If you have never created any art, imagine you putting your heart and soul into a piece of art, only for someone to come along many years later and "correct" it.
Another example of cultural vandalist committed by the Dutch publisher: BEFORE vs AFTER
Note the added sound effects. The whole point of the original strip was that we are witnessing the aftermath of events that happened in the past (possibly many hours ago if not even earlier), while in the ruined Dutch version it's all happening in the present with Donald just outside the frame. Just another case of suits diminishing the work of artists.
I actually like the Dutch presentation. Here in Italy they have always changed the presentation of foreign stories to adapt them to the pocket format and I think that it did not "ruin" nor "diminished" the comics. Yes, I could agree that it could be a shame if the author writes shorter gags that end in a page-space, but each country (and publisher) has its own ideas and I think they should know what is better for them and their readers.
As someone else pointed out, I would better understand a critique about the translation/faithfulness to the author's writing. My tip is, if you want to read comics as Barks intended, just read them in English (even though his publisher sometimes made changes back then, cutting panels here and there, so I don't think that all of his comics as we know them are "as Barks intended" them).
I actually like the Dutch presentation. Here in Italy they have always changed the presentation of foreign stories to adapt them to the pocket format and I think that it did not "ruin" nor "diminished" the comics. Yes, I could agree that it could be a shame if the author writes shorter gags that end in a page-space, but each country (and publisher) has its own ideas and I think they should know what is better for them and their readers.
As someone else pointed out, I would better understand a critique about the translation/faithfulness to the author's writing. My tip is, if you want to read comics as Barks intended, just read them in English (even though his publisher sometimes made changes back then, cutting panels here and there, so I don't think that all of his comics as we know them are "as Barks intended" them).
I don't quite understand the argument that visual meddling with a comic artist's work is more acceptable than changing the writer's intent in the translation. Comics are a visual medium. Of course visual presentation matters.
That said, the samples that caballero shows don't exactly shock me either, as I've seen many such re-edits of comics panels and pages in Disney publications over the years.
I was going to comment something along these lines. It also seems to me in bad faith, as well as in bad taste.
I really don't now how to respond to that. I make a post about cultural vandalism and you criticize my post instead of what those publishers did. What do you think is the approprite response to cultural vandalism? Or do you think it's perfectly fine what those Dutch publishers did (again, the "Mush" example was just that, ONE example)?
You seem to have developed ideas about publishing that run contrary to the way publishing actually works in the real world. Your attitude toward the people who make our comics (yes, editors are people too!) are what people mean when they talk about toxic fandoms. Instead, let's try a more openminded frame of mind. Why did the editors make the decisions they did? What are their priorities in creating a comic book?
The Ayn Randian "artist as ultimate arbiter" idea seems a bad fit with the medium of Disney comics, which are not only highly collaborative, but are also under strict censorship from Disney. Most Disney artists, Barks included, understand that this is the deal: you're not making High Art that expresses your artistic vision, you're a craftsman who assembles somewhat formulaic stories and drawings to a consistent level of quality, for which you receive a steady income. It's no Van Gogh, but it's an honest living.
(Let's also address the elephant in the room here: the only reason Don Rosa could allow himself so much freedom in his work was because he was independently wealthy from liquidating his grandfather's old construction business. Don never needed to live on his comics work, it was a hobby for him. This gave him the freedom to maintain somewhat different ideas about how his comics should be treated than his wage slave colleagues.)
When creating comic books, editors have several things to keep in mind. Who are the audience for this product? What do they expect from a comic book, and what are they liable to criticize? Keep in mind that the examples you cited were created for the regular Duck magazine, which is supposed to be accessible to all ages - not a Barks collection for specialists. Uniformity of style is a very important aspect. This is why editors around the world redraw perfectly good Disney comics, in order to complement their homegrown art style. This also extends to the regular use of panel borders, or the use of sound effects. If they don't add those, they may expect letters from readers saying something like "your comic is unfinished! I expect consistent quality for my subscription!" or something to that effect. Or you may end up alienating the very youngest readers, who are not comic literate but whose attention you'll want to keep in the long run. You'll want to avoid alienating them, even if it means 'adapting' comics into your house style.
I don't know how it is in other countries, but I know for a fact that the Dutch editors have long prioritized a close connection with their readers. They're published letter columns since the start of the magazine, now 70 years ago - and those are the letters they DO publish. Readers are perceptive and critical - and I mean readers of all ages. There was a policy in place for many years that there should be no silent panels. I'm not sure if it's still in place. They may have noticed that readers respond negatively to wordless comics. I don't know, I'm not an editor from 1986, but I can speculate.
Another thing is that the Dutch editors appear to be more restricted in their licensing agreement with Disney than in other countries (except maybe the USA, but that's a different market altogether). From recent articles which I've read, it's clear that this has become a particularly sore issue among writers, artists, and editors. One article cited that they couldn't do 90% of what happens in Barks comics - and from reading the comics, I don't think that number is far off. That's another thing they need to consider when creating new comic books, and it doesn't make the job any easier for them. You must have heard about the characters that recently ended up on the Disney blacklist: Little Hiawatha, Brers Rabbit, Fox, and Bear. Who knows, maybe Bucky Bug (poverty) or José Carioca (funny foreigner with an accent) is next? Readers are clamoring for more comic violence and more gay representation, but is there any one story worth losing your license over? So if the Dutch editors have to play it safe sometimes, they do so for a reason.
I know who ran the Dutch comic department in the '80s and '90s. These people didn't hate Barks and didn't think they knew better than him -- anything but! You may agree with their editorial decisions, you may disagree. Everybody has that right. But it's not fair to accuse them of acting in bad faith, in fact I think it's pretty disrespectful. I don't know why you decided on this combative tone, but I hope you can see my point of view.
Last Edit: Jul 22, 2022 18:28:02 GMT by That Duckfan
Another thing is that the Dutch editors appear to be more restricted in their licensing agreement with Disney than in other countries (except maybe the USA, but that's a different market altogether). From recent articles which I've read, it's clear that this has become a particularly sore issue among writers, artists, and editors. One article cited that they couldn't do 90% of what happens in Barks comics - and from reading the comics, I don't think that number is far off. That's another thing they need to consider when creating new comic books, and it doesn't make the job any easier for them. You must have heard about the characters that recently ended up on the Disney blacklist: Little Hiawatha, Brers Rabbit, Fox, and Bear. Who knows, maybe Bucky Bug (poverty) or José Carioca (funny foreigner with an accent) is next? Readers are clamoring for more comic violence and more gay representation, but is there any one story worth losing your license over? So if the Dutch editors have to play it safe sometimes, they do so for a reason.
Just wanted to say this: My impression is that the current rules Disney Publishing has imposed on what the Disney characters can't or cannot do in new comics stories - or which characters can be used - are in effect worldwide. I don't think the Netherlands are getting any kind of special treatment here. In fact, the Norwegian duck artist Arild Midthun, who works through Egmont in Denmark, mentioned in an interview last month that Disney no longer allows Donald Duck to eat hot dogs in the comics he draws today.
That Duckfan What people mean when they talk about toxic fandoms are fans who are unhappy about a piece of art (movie, book, comic, etc). This isn't about Disney comics I dislike. This is about Disney comics that were ruined or at least diminished by people such as publishers after their creation. Whether I liked the original version or not is irrelevant. Also, this isn't about the input of editors during the creation of comics (such as when Byron Erickson gave notes when Don Rosa created his comics). This is about people altering comics when they are being reprinted.
You knowing the person/people who ran the Dutch comic department in the '80s and '90s explains why you are defending them, but you should also listen to the other side. For example it's no accident that Don Rosa repeatedly singled out the Dutch publisher as the worst one he had to deal with in Europe. But this this thread isn't intended to be exclusively about them, it's just happens so that two of the most illustrative examples of cultural vandalism in Disney comic history I could think of (which I wrote about in this thread earlier) were committed by them.
Mesterius That about Donald eating hot dogs must have been a misunderstanding between Disney and Egmont. The alternative, that Disney really no longer allows Donald Duck to eat hot dogs is too depressing to contemplate. I mean why? What's wrong with hot dogs?
I actually like the Dutch presentation. Here in Italy they have always changed the presentation of foreign stories to adapt them to the pocket format and I think that it did not "ruin" nor "diminished" the comics. Yes, I could agree that it could be a shame if the author writes shorter gags that end in a page-space, but each country (and publisher) has its own ideas and I think they should know what is better for them and their readers.
As someone else pointed out, I would better understand a critique about the translation/faithfulness to the author's writing. My tip is, if you want to read comics as Barks intended, just read them in English (even though his publisher sometimes made changes back then, cutting panels here and there, so I don't think that all of his comics as we know them are "as Barks intended" them).
I don't quite understand the argument that visual meddling with a comic artist's work is more acceptable than changing the writer's intent in the translation. Comics are a visual medium. Of course visual presentation matters.
That said, the samples that caballero shows don't exactly shock me either, as I've seen many such re-edits of comics panels and pages in Disney publications over the years.
That was not what I meant, and my post basically deals with two different ideas that I will rephrase:
1. The Dutch version looks okay to me. I can't see big changes (and here I made the example that Italian publishers did way "worse", if we consider the re-arranging of panels as a bad thing, as OP suggests). 2. Re-arranging the panels is a shame when the author has a strong visual idea and/or a gag that starts and ends in a page-space, which is something Barks often had. Other than that, it is not as a big thing as actually changing the meaning of the dialogues and/or words and references the characters do (which is sometimes necessary when adapting the stories to a different popular culture/language, but I said this since OP seemed concerned about faithfulness to the author's intention).
There is also a third idea that I mentioned and it is that sometimes Barks had to write and draw some things as he did because he may be asked to (in order to leave space for advertisement etc...), and sometimes they also cut some panels off his pages. So there might not be such thing as Barks' vision in some (minor and probably not that many) cases.