Disney Italia. Disney Italia. Disney Italia. Disney Italia. Disney Italia. Disney Italia. Disney Italia. Disney Italia.....
Are the same people editing these issues as Fantagraphics' Disney Maters series? This onslough of Italian Disney comics is getting REALLY ridiculous.
Well, the Egmont, Dutch and Brazilian writers have not had the space to create long parodies of classic literature, have they? If that's the kind of story Dark Horse is publishing here, of course they'll be Italian in origin. I'm curious to see what others they might publish. Lots of the literary classics parodied in Italian stories are classics with which Americans are largely unfamiliar.
I'm with Monkey_Feyerabend in greatly preferring some of the new Italian parodies to the traditional Italian parodies (with the exceptions of Carpi's Candelabra and Scarpa's Duck/Robin Hood, which is actually the only Scarpa story I really love, especially in GeoX's localization--the rest of the trad Italian parodies I've read just bore me).
If that's the kind of story Dark Horse is publishing here, of course they'll be Italian in origin.
Ok, but what about Walt Disney's Comics and Stories #1 by IDW and Uncle Scrooge: My First Millions #1 by IDW? More Disney Italy stuff! As for those parodies, i've always hated Disney comics where Mickey, Donald and Scrooge are basically actors who play characters.
This will be the second time WDC&S is renamed, after Gemstone renamed it "Walt Disney Comics", which was continued until IDW.
It was actually Gladstone II, and there wasn't a renaming as such, the "and Stories" was simply dropped from the cover. The official name of the title remained WDC&S. There was a thread on the old DCF that explained the reasoning behind this decision by Bruce Hamilton, but I've forgotten what it was (speaking of which, I wonder if cacou has made any progress with resurrecting the DCF in archival form, as he said he was planning to do?).
blot said: BOOM!!! I believe IDW has gone this low. KABOOM!!!
Well, I wouldn't go that far, at least not yet, but unfortunately, what the Boom!/Kaboom and IDW experiences seem to suggest is that a stable, ongoing, "Core Four" Disney line is unsustainable in the current market. I guess the portents were already there when Gemstone cancelled the regular Donald and Mickey titles. A sad reality.
Scrooge MacDuck said: Oboy, the WDC&S numbering reset promises many a headache for this poor Wikimaster…
How is it any different from IDW resetting the numbering for the Donald, Mickey and Scrooge books when they first started the line? Unless you suspect they aren't going to use dual numbering, which I doubt will be the case... but if it is, then wouldn't Disney Comics and Stories be a brand new title, thus eliminating any confusion?
Is there any official word on if or when the regular Uncle Scrooge title will return?
Ok, but what about Walt Disney's Comics and Stories #1 by IDW and Uncle Scrooge: My First Millions #1 by IDW? More Disney Italy stuff!
We'll get some Egmont backup stories this month too I guess. Disney Comics and Stories #1 have Oh, Grow Up!, and based on the creators listed I'm guessing the Magica Halloween issue have one of these three.
This will be the second time WDC&S is renamed, after Gemstone renamed it "Walt Disney Comics", which was continued until IDW.
It was actually Gladstone II, and there wasn't a renaming as such, the "and Stories" was simply dropped from the cover. The official name of the title remained WDC&S. There was a thread on the old DCF that explained the reasoning behind this decision by Bruce Hamilton, but I've forgotten what it was (speaking of which, I wonder if cacou has made any progress with resurrecting the DCF in archival form, as he said he was planning to do?).
This will be the second time WDC&S is renamed, after Gemstone renamed it "Walt Disney Comics", which was continued until IDW.
It was actually Gladstone II, and there wasn't a renaming as such, the "and Stories" was simply dropped from the cover. The official name of the title remained WDC&S. There was a thread on the old DCF that explained the reasoning behind this decision by Bruce Hamilton, but I've forgotten what it was.
On the reasoning for dropping the "and stories"...my memory is that the issue was that the "and stories" originally referred to the text stories in the comic, and there were no text stories any more, so that part of the title was inaccurate and obsolete. I know that at least one reader had written in and pointed this out. And of course there's always an issue about how much space the title takes up on the cover. If the "and Stories" could be dropped, that meant less incursion on the art. Though Bruce Hamilton in Gladstone I was also the perpetrator of the "Adventures" titles, and that word definitely took up space... I fondly remember the time Don Rosa put "Adventures" in small print on a blimp on his "Super Snooper" cover (DDA Disney Interregnum 34), thus freeing up significant real estate for the cover design.
It was actually Gladstone II, and there wasn't a renaming as such, the "and Stories" was simply dropped from the cover. The official name of the title remained WDC&S. There was a thread on the old DCF that explained the reasoning behind this decision by Bruce Hamilton, but I've forgotten what it was.
On the reasoning for dropping the "and stories"...my memory is that the issue was that the "and stories" originally referred to the text stories in the comic, and there were no text stories any more, so that part of the title was inaccurate and obsolete. I know that at least one reader had written in and pointed this out. And of course there's always an issue about how much space the title takes up on the cover. If the "and Stories" could be dropped, that meant less incursion on the art. Though Bruce Hamilton in Gladstone I was also the perpetrator of the "Adventures" titles, and that word definitely took up space... I fondly remember the time Don Rosa put "Adventures" in small print on a blimp on his "Super Snooper" cover (DDA Disney Interregnum 34), thus freeing up significant real estate for the cover design.
In defense of "Adventures", though, it was necessary to have the word in large lettering on the covers, to distinguish them from the non-Adventures titles that bore a a similar name (e.g.., Donald Duck Adventures vs Donald Duck) and that appeared on the newsstands contemporaneously in the Gladstone eras. Disney Comics, Inc., had only one Donald and Mickey title during their run, both of which were "Adventures" ... but the "Adventures" part was unimportant since there was no non-Adventures counterpart with which they might be confused, so it could be minimized as Rosa so ingeniously did in the example you cited. While we're on the subject, though, I asked this elsewhere but don't think I got an answer ... did Gladstone I popularize the practice of suffixing "Adventures" to intellectual property? I never heard the term used that way before and thought it was awkward when Gladstone began naming comic titles that way (specifically, "Donald Duck Adventures" rather than "Adventures of Donald Duck"), but then a slew of other companies followed suit ("Tiny Toon Adventures", "Batman Adventures", "TMNT Adventures", etc.). Did Hamilton set the trend?
Scrooge MacDuck said: Oboy, the WDC&S numbering reset promises many a headache for this poor Wikimaster…
How is it any different from IDW resetting the numbering for the Donald, Mickey and Scrooge books when they first started the line? Unless you suspect they aren't going to use dual numbering, which I doubt will be the case...
Well, yes, since they didn't start out with a numbering reset, I was assuming that this time it would be a true reset, not a “we're calling this #1 because of reasons, but you fans know this is just #303” thing.
On the reasoning for dropping the "and stories"...my memory is that the issue was that the "and stories" originally referred to the text stories in the comic, and there were no text stories any more, so that part of the title was inaccurate and obsolete. I know that at least one reader had written in and pointed this out. And of course there's always an issue about how much space the title takes up on the cover. If the "and Stories" could be dropped, that meant less incursion on the art. Though Bruce Hamilton in Gladstone I was also the perpetrator of the "Adventures" titles, and that word definitely took up space... I fondly remember the time Don Rosa put "Adventures" in small print on a blimp on his "Super Snooper" cover (DDA Disney Interregnum 34), thus freeing up significant real estate for the cover design.
In defense of "Adventures", though, it was necessary to have the word in large lettering on the covers, to distinguish them from the non-Adventures titles that bore a a similar name (e.g.., Donald Duck Adventures vs Donald Duck) and that appeared on the newsstands contemporaneously in the Gladstone eras. Disney Comics, Inc., had only one Donald and Mickey title during their run, both of which were "Adventures" ... but the "Adventures" part was unimportant since there was no non-Adventures counterpart with which they might be confused, so it could be minimized as Rosa so ingeniously did in the example you cited.
True, the Disney Interregnum's Donald Duck Adventures did not need to be clearly distinguished from a Donald Duck comic, good point. I still think Hamilton could have come up with something distinctive for the DDA/U$A titles/logos that wasn't that space-hogging. It all pales in comparison to the infamous The Adventurous Uncle Scrooge McDuck, of course.
It all pales in comparison to the infamous The Adventurous Uncle Scrooge McDuck, of course.
Care to enlighten me? I don't know that one, "infamous" though it may apparently be. Though I do know of a Walt Disney's Adventures of Uncle Scrooge McDuck in Color book, by INDUCKS.
It all pales in comparison to the infamous The Adventurous Uncle Scrooge McDuck, of course.
Care to enlighten me? I don't know that one, "infamous" though it may apparently be. Though I do know of a Walt Disney's Adventures of Uncle Scrooge McDuck in Color book, by INDUCKS.
Put the title in INDUCKS and you'll find them: two issues, regular-sized comics, 1998. It's the length of the title that's infamous.
I fondly remember the time Don Rosa put "Adventures" in small print on a blimp on his "Super Snooper" cover (DDA Disney Interregnum 34), thus freeing up significant real estate for the cover design.
A bit off-topic, but checking the inducks page, someone have uploaded a scan from the Don Rosa Library with the cover and the _real_ "Adventures" logo! Is there any text in the book talking about this too (I don't have the book). I guess it's a pre-release version of the cover, and it's a bit strange if this one is used in the book without any explanation.
How is it any different from IDW resetting the numbering for the Donald, Mickey and Scrooge books when they first started the line? Unless you suspect they aren't going to use dual numbering, which I doubt will be the case...
Well, yes, since they didn't start out with a numbering reset, I was assuming that this time it would be a true reset, not a “we're calling this #1 because of reasons, but you fans know this is just #303” thing.
If they don't go with the dual numbering, though, the minor name change to Disney Comics and Stories would make it a new, different title, and the Wiki could treat it as such, correct? Out of curiosity, how did you deal with IDW's new Walt Disney Showcase and Donald and Mickey titles, considering that both existed before under different publishers, but the numbering was reset without dual numbering?
None of this is to ignore the fact that resetting the numbering of a title in the middle of a run is usually a sign of desperation and any boost in sales from such a move is epheremal, of course, as others have pointed out already.
Well, yes, since they didn't start out with a numbering reset, I was assuming that this time it would be a true reset, not a “we're calling this #1 because of reasons, but you fans know this is just #303” thing.
If they don't go with the dual numbering, though, the minor name change to Disney Comics and Stories would make it a new, different title, and the Wiki could treat it as such, correct? Out of curiosity, how did you deal with IDW's new Walt Disney Showcase and Donald and Mickey titles, considering that both existed before under different publishers, but the numbering was reset without dual numbering?
None of this is to ignore the fact that resetting the numbering of a title in the middle of a run is usually a sign of desperation and any boost in sales from such a move is epheremal, of course, as others have pointed out already.
I carried the numbering over from the old ones for Donald & Mickey and Walt Disney Showcase. I'm of two minds on what to do about Disney Comics and Stories, though. On the one hand, it does, at first glance, seem like a new title… but, I mean, if we ever get a proper Walt Disney's Comics and Stories title back and running, A, which numbering would it follow, and B, do you really think it could ever exist concurrently to Disney Comics and Stories…?
I carried the numbering over from the old ones for Donald & Mickey and Walt Disney Showcase. I'm of two minds on what to do about Disney Comics and Stories, though. On the one hand, it does, at first glance, seem like a new title… but, I mean, if we ever get a proper Walt Disney's Comics and Stories title back and running, A, which numbering would it follow, and B, do you really think it could ever exist concurrently to Disney Comics and Stories…?
Which numbers did you start with? Donald and Mickey went through a tortuous route of rebranding, renumbering and renaming ... did you include the Donald Duck and Mickey Mouse issues as well?
As for Disney Comics and Stories, if they don't go with dual numbering, then the title should be considered a separate entity. To rename and include its issues in a resurrected WDC&S would be cheating, in my view (which is why Donald Duck and Mickey Mouse should not be counted in the Donald and Mickey tally as I see it). As I mentioned elsewhere, I wish they had continued dual numbering for these two titles. I love the sense of history that Legacy Numbering provides.
(Also, *epehemeral)
Ugh. that was an undetected typo, not an unfamiliarity with the word, I assure you. But in all fairness ... it's ephemeral.