How could the Dandy save itself?

[Lew Stringer]

Digifiend seemed to be saying in response "Yes, but they're not typical;" I thought he was implying that things conceived 'in house' were in a bit of a rut.

Most characters and scripts are done in house but not the artwork. Looking through the Dandy these days there's a good variety of styles: Duncan Scott, Jamie Smart, Nigel Parkinson, Nick Brennan, Wayne Thomson, Nigel Auchterlounie and Clive McGee. All distinctive, all different. You're entitled to dislike its direction, and I understand that, but it's certainly not in a rut.

Over on The Beano, Super School was conceived in house but it's proven to be very popular, I'm happy to say. Superhero spoofs may not seem very radical to us old codgers but I think it's the first time The Beano's done one. (I'm sure Kashgar will correct me if I'm wrong. I've probably forgotten an obvious Beano superhero spoof.) Speaking of which I'd better get on with the next episode!

Lew

[Raven]

Fair point, and true to an extent. However can you prove the comic/magazine hybrid isn't a natural progression? Again, look at the bigger picture - the history of comics. The comic/mag hybrid has been around a long time, including notable titles such as Eagle, TV Century 21, Diana, and Look-In. It's a proven mixture that kids have enjoyed so, yes, it is natural that publishers should look to that "model", to use their crap phrase, when faced with budget cuts.

Well, for a start, many might be of the opinion that the magazine elements of, say, Look-In at its peak were rather higher quality than that of Dandy Xtreme. Look-In wasn't a magazine for the purpose of cutting costs and putting together something cheaper like the modern model for many children's papers - its dedicated articles (interviews/football/news/cookery, etc.) probably made the title more expensive to do.

It's valid anyway. You might see it as the "industry viewpoint" but it happens to be true!

It isn't true if people are saying "Everything's fine with the state of the traditional comics" and "The Dandy Xtreme is doing perfectly well because there was always a gap in sales between Dandy and Beano." We're aware of the direction sales have been heading in the last few years.

Our sensibilities change as adults but that doesn't mean we can't still get some enjoyment out of the artwork or the story construction of a children's comic. But it's unrealistic to expect Dandy or Beano to give you the same buzz as it did when you were a child.

I don't think anybody's said that they expect this - but that doesn't mean they won't have objective opinions, as with everything else in the world.

But we're talking about the UK. The tastes of other countries are often different. The Phantom is huge in Norway and Australia but it falls flat in the UK. Donald Duck comics are massive in Norway but Disney strips struggle here. I don't quite see the point you're making.

I thought you were implying that complete comic publications (without the 'magazine' element) may simply have run their course and have no more part in the modern world than Penny Farthing bicycles. I think the international situation shows that comics can still survive very healthily and be popular. I'm not sure when there was last a full Disney comic strip comic over here, but Disney itself is probably more popular than ever; the Donald and Mickey line was successful for years, and the Disney & Me title is a mega-seller (not sure if it contains strips, now) so, potentially, if done right, a Disney comic may do well.

Many youngsters over here seem to love Manga (I'm sure it's accepted thinking that a tween/teen girl's comic wouldn't work in the UK any more, but many girls love these titles - boys too) and these are all comic strip. And, funnily enough, in black and white, not on high quality paper and without a bag full of free gifts.

The IPC titles vanished because kids lost interest in them! The surviving ones ended up at Egmont who are still publishing comic/mag hybrids or just magazines. Thomsons also adapted to modern tastes as they're still in the game too.

Buster and co. had probably naturally run their course (though, again, you can't really adapt with the times if, in the interests of doing it on the cheap, the greater majority of content becomes reprint), but IPC were doing lots of research into new directions for kids' comics; Oh No was one of them. But Gutenburg-Egmont took over IPC and cancelled them all, didn't they? They weren't interested, as I recall. Nothing to do with kids losing interest - it was a business decision by the new owners. The planned new titles may have done well.

All this talk of the Dandy failing seems to ignore the fact that sales of all periodicals are falling. Have been for years! Everyone's trying their best to survive.

Yes, print is in trouble - it's hard for it to compete with online. Comics may be best offering what no other medium can - printed comic strips.

[Raven]

Most characters and scripts are done in house but not the artwork. Looking through the Dandy these days there's a good variety of styles: Duncan Scott, Jamie Smart, Nigel Parkinson, Nick Brennan, Wayne Thomson, Nigel Auchterlounie and Clive McGee. All distinctive, all different. You're entitled to dislike its direction, and I understand that, but it's certainly not in a rut.

I think from Conor's criticisms that started this very thread onwards, to Digifiend's "All I did was note that they write their own strips, and thus were not typical of the majority of the material used in the comics. I said that if anything needed changing, it was the work done by staff writers. Dan was given to Jamie more than likely because readers felt it had become stale ... I'm sure most of you would agree that the artwork and storylines are a lot more modern now ... " etc., the general comments have been more directed at the concepts/scripting/writing etc. rather than the actual artwork.

Over on The Beano, Super School was conceived in house but it's proven to be very popular, I'm happy to say. Superhero spoofs may not seem very radical to us old codgers but I think it's the first time The Beano's done one. (I'm sure Kashgar will correct me if I'm wrong. I've probably forgotten an obvious Beano superhero spoof.) Speaking of which I'd better get on with the next episode!
Lew

I'd assumed that Disney's rather good Sky High - about a school for superhero kids learning how to focus their talents - had presumably been an inspiration for this one?

[Lew Stringer]

I'd assumed that Disney's rather good Sky High - about a school for superhero kids learning how to focus their talents - had presumably been an inspiration for this one?

I've never heard of Sky High, but the inspiration for Super School was the X-Men.

Lew

[Raven]

Just for info: Sky High was quite a successful 2005 Disney film about the kids of superheroes going to school to develop and control their own super powers (one can melt into a puddle, one can turn into a guinea pig, etc.) - a sort of parody of Professor X's school for mutants - with the kids who turned out not to have powers themselves doomed to be mere sidekicks!

[Lew Stringer]

Well, for a start, many might be of the opinion that the magazine elements of, say, Look-In at its peak were rather higher quality than that of Dandy Xtreme.

Different times. Articles as in-depth as those which Look-In featured would be considered "boring" by many of today's kids. They prefer their info short and snappy.

Look-In wasn't a magazine for the purpose of cutting costs and putting together something cheaper like the modern model for many children's papers - its dedicated articles (interviews/football/news/cookery, etc.) probably made the title more expensive to do.

I didn't say that it was a cost-cutter. In fact Look-In was an expensive mag to produce. What I said was that the comic/magazine hybrid has been around for a long time, and that the success of Look-In proved kids liked that format.

It's valid anyway. You might see it as the "industry viewpoint" but it happens to be true!

It isn't true if people are saying "Everything's fine with the state of the traditional comics"

I wasn't saying that at all! The context referred to Nigel and I saying that Dandy and Beano are aimed at children. You do have a knack of putting words into people's mouths Raven.

IPC were doing lots of research into new directions for kids' comics; Oh No was one of them. But Gutenburg-Egmont took over IPC and cancelled them all, didn't they? They weren't interested, as I recall. Nothing to do with kids losing interest - it was a business decision by the new owners. The planned new titles may have done well.

No, IPC sold the comics to Maxwell, then Egmont bought the comics division. IPC are still around. Egmont cancelled Oh No!! before it could be launched, yes. Their loss IMHO. The editors Dave King and Ian Ellery would have had the clout to get it lots of publicity, and the comic even "tested" very positively, but like you say Egmont didn't go for it. Did they stop doing comics? No. Sonic the Comic was a huge hit for them. Ran for about nine years. Yes there is resistance to doing comics but there's little around today to prove to them that they can work. They currently have Power Rangers, Toxic and Ben 10 (the latter being reprinted American strips) and at least one girls' Disney title (Princess or something) which may feature some strip content.

Lew

[Raven]

It isn't true if people are saying "Everything's fine with the state of the traditional comics"

I wasn't saying that at all! The context referred to Nigel and I saying that Dandy and Beano are aimed at children. You do have a knack of putting words into people's mouths Raven.

I was referring to comments like Nigel's "The Beano has always outsold The Dandy by a large margin even when both were fairly similar" which implied that there had been nothing untoward in its big drop in sales over recent years, and the denial that the traditional in house output may be in a bit of a rut. Conor was quite upfront with his own opinions - as a kid - at the start of the thread; it's a pity if there's a refusal to even consider that there's anything even worth talking about from a critical angle. But onwards ...


That Dandy and Beano are aimed at children is obvious. The disagreement in that regard was that, by extension, only children are eligible to comment on them. Nigel's "If you don't like it, it's probably because you're too old for it." But we're going round and round in circles a bit now, so I won't comment further on these issues unless there's anything genuinely new to add.

No, IPC sold the comics to Maxwell, then Egmont bought the comics division. IPC are still around. Egmont cancelled Oh No!! before it could be launched, yes. Their loss IMHO. The editors Dave King and Ian Ellery would have had the clout to get it lots of publicity, and the comic even "tested" very positively, but like you say Egmont didn't go for it. Did they stop doing comics? No. Sonic the Comic was a huge hit for them. Ran for about nine years. Yes there is resistance to doing comics but there's little around today to prove to them that they can work. They currently have Power Rangers, Toxic and Ben 10 (the latter being reprinted American strips) and at least one girls' Disney title (Princess or something) which may feature some strip content.

Lew

Sorry, yes, of course IPC are still around with lots of magazines - I should have said 'Egmont took over what had been IPC's comic line.'

Work was being done towards launching quite a few titles wasn't it - including potential adventure comics? What Egmont presumably did was cancel every title and potential new title of the period that wasn't based round a licensed character or product line, hence killing off what had been the 'traditional IPC comic line,' - that is, all-comic titles not based on licensed product - which is what I meant.

That is, kids didn't turn away from the likes of 'Oh No!!' - they never got the chance to see them. That traditional line of self-contained comics was not given the chance to continue and evolve, and remain a healthy alternative to the Thomson output. As you say yourself, Oh No!!, for one, looked like it could have been a success.

[Digifiend]

Yes Lew, not to be confused with the two previous comics called Princess, this one is called Disney Princess, with the focus on characters like Snow White, Cinderella and The Little Mermaid. The Power Rangers title stangely still uses the Jungle Fury title, even though the next series, RPM, is already on Jetix. They should at least swap the Operation Overdrive material for RPM stuff, which as far as I'm aware, hasn't happened yet.

[ISPYSHHHGUY]

wow, really heated debate...[but still civil]-------good to see there is still much genuine passion for comics [at least on here.]

[Jonny Whizz]

It's down to personal taste really. If you don't like a comic, don't buy it. Yes, it's a shame that so many titles have disappeared over the years, but if no one will buy a comic there's no point in it being on sale. DC Thompson, IPC and all other publishers have to make money. If they didn't, there would be no comics at all! The fact is, the world at the moment is a difficult place for a comic to make much of an impact, with all these computer games, TV shows etc.

Anyway, (at the risk of appearing a hypocrite!), why are we taking a kid's comic so seriously? As long as the kids buy it, and like it, it's fine. A comic title not selling well might not be so much to do with the content - it could be the price, poor marketing, or as we've mentioned in the past, they (or their parents) can't actually find it! I do think though, that uncluttered covers make comics stand out more, although then again a cluttered cover makes it looks to kids as though there's more inside. Look at the DFC - most of its readers liked it, but because not enough people knew about it, it folded after a year.

[Lew Stringer]

That is, kids didn't turn away from the likes of 'Oh No!!' - they never got the chance to see them. That traditional line of self-contained comics was not given the chance to continue and evolve, and remain a healthy alternative to the Thomson output. As you say yourself, Oh No!!, for one, looked like it could have been a success.

Yes but that's purely speculation isn't it? A line of non-existent comics might have been successful or they might not have. In fact I don't think it was a line. It was Oh No!! and one or two others. Publishers used to produce dummy issues all the time and many never made it to the stands. One could just as easily say that if Spitfire and Blackjack had been published in 1969 they'd save the industry.

You make it sound as if Egmont came along and robbed a generation of a comics industry. Not the case. Comics had been dying for years and the fact is that "traditional" comics such as Tiger, Whoopee, Victor, Topper, TV Comic etc had reached a natural end, as all comics eventually end. Most of the new comics they came up with didn't survive for long, - Wildcat, Nipper, Speed, etc. That format and tone of comic had become as outdated as the comics of the golden age.

It really was time for comics to evolve again. We may not like the comic/magazine hybrid but the fact is it has proven popular (in the case of Toxic and BeanoMAX). Would Oh No!! have lasted seven years like Toxic? We'll never know, but we can only deal in the realities of what has worked.

Lew

[Lew Stringer]

Anyway, (at the risk of appearing a hypocrite!), why are we taking a kid's comic so seriously?

Because for some of us it's our career. Also, it's important to get the facts straight because future books on UK comic history will use websites like this for reference.

Lew

[Digifiend]

Too right it is. However, a forum like this is not exactly what Wikipedia would call a reliable source, is it? Indeed, even the website itself, being a one man project, is not ideal research for historians. Any researcher worth their salt would contact Egmont, DC Thomson, Rebellion, etc, direct, not quote fan made websites. If they do use websites for reference, is it not second hand information? It would be like Chinese Whispers! Of course, if the info on a website is accurate, it won't matter one iota.

[NP]

I just don't think it would be ideal if professionals always put forward the industry viewpoint in a way that seems to suggest critics should shut up.

Last time I looked this was still a free country and I believe I'm entitled to express my view based on a lifetime of reading comics and working on them since 1980. If it happens to be the 'industry viewpoint' then that probably shows it's correct, based on, oh, I dunno, them putting their money where their mouth is and actually publishing comics, nurturing talent and giving us all something to write about here. IPC comics (Gawd luv em, I worked on several of them) were cutting edge but the last one vanished ten years ago. They're history. The Beano and Dandy (as Dandy Xtreme) are still with us, and I hope they will remain so.

[Raven]

Last time I looked this was still a free country and I believe I'm entitled to express my view based on a lifetime of reading comics and working on them since 1980.

And by extension other people should be able to freely express their own opinions too, surely?

If it happens to be the 'industry viewpoint' then that probably shows it's correct, based on, oh, I dunno, them putting their money where their mouth is and actually publishing comics, nurturing talent and giving us all something to write about here. IPC comics (Gawd luv em, I worked on several of them) were cutting edge but the last one vanished ten years ago. They're history.

Irony of the combination of those sentences presumably unintended?

The Beano and Dandy (as Dandy Xtreme) are still with us, and I hope they will remain so.

So do many others, hence the tendency to discuss what people consider to be right and wrong directions for them, and why they're interested in debating the best way to keep them around. Forums - going back to Ancient Rome - are meeting places for the discussion of questions of mutual interest. That's what's so good about them. Discussion.