This week's issue Take 2

[Jonny Whizz]

I remember the Freddie Fear strip you're talking about. I think it was in an issue where Derek the Sheep appeared - possibly the first one in February 2004 - and many of the early Derek strips were printed along the foot of the other pages of the comic, which meant that any strips that had title banners at that time (Freddie Fear was one, Billy Whizz was another) tended to have smaller titles incorporated into the first panel of the strip, presumably to save space so that the strip didn't need to be reduced in size, but in that particular case the smaller title was included despite the full banner also appearing.

[Digifiend]

So, Singled Out is back (Mike Pearse reprints), but it's been renamed "Bash Street Kids Capers!"

[Gilly]

I've noticed they are numbering them as well so I wonder how many of them they are planning to run.

Also No 13 had a different masthead this weekend. Was it me or did the Beano Street look a bit more out of place, I know I'm being a bit nitpicky but I just thought I'd ask.

[Jonny Whizz]

I think Mike Pearse always numbered his Singled Out pages - he did this with his The Three Bears strips as well, and on his long stories (most commonly seen around 1999-2001, plus the 2004-2006 Beano Annuals) he numbered each individual pages. Hunt Emerson has numbered all his Beano pages as well, but I'd struggle to think of any other artists who've done it.

In some ways it is a shame that Singled Out has been renamed, yet at the same time I don't think it's such a big loss as the title was 'of its time' and in a way that, say, Number 13 and Adrian the Barbarian weren't. I'm am pleased to see that it's returned though, as it was a very good strip.

[Digifiend]

Yeah, Mike did include numbers, hand drawn onto the corner of each strip - which will expose the fact they're reprints as soon as one of the numbers doesn't match the computer graphic ones (Yeah, Gilly isn't talking about Mike drawing them on, it's a new graphic). This week's original number was covered up by a picture of Fatty - I bet if someone checks it's original printing, it won't be the first strip, and they placed the picture on purpose to hide that. I know the reprinted Roger the Dodgers have been used out of order. You're right about Hunt as well - one Little Plum strip used in an annual was identifiable as intended for BeanoMAX because of that.

As for Number 13, yeah, the Beano Street tag could've been placed better. There's a lot of wasted black space on that page as well. I hope that layout was a one-off.

[swirlythingy]

This week's original number was covered up by a picture of Fatty - I bet if someone checks it's original printing, it won't be the first strip, and they placed the picture on purpose to hide that.

I, er, forgot to buy the Beano today (oops) but is it the one with the peanut butter in the balloon? That was the first one.

I don't mind Singled Out being renamed, since as Jonny Whizz says the original title was always a bit crap (and very ill-fitted to the later strips), but is "Bash Street Kids Capers" really, honestly the best they could do? That suggests they weren't interested in improving the title so much as changing it for change's sake. What with "Beano Street" and the even more loathsome "Totally Gross", they seem to be making a habit of that. What's the point?

Printing Singled Out out of order is asking for accidents to happen, as not only were there a number of multi-week story arcs, some strips referred back to earlier strips (as in the infamous elephant gag). That's not to say they won't try, of course. If the Beano was ruled by sense, Number 13 wouldn't have been renamed...

I wonder if any of the strips from the 2010 Bash Street Kids annual are going to be reused? They may simply not be too bothered about that, since that book sold so poorly.

Regarding artists numbering strips: How did Jim Petrie and David Sutherland know that they had drawn their 2000th episodes of Minnie and the Kids respectively?

[Digifiend]

Annuals weren't counted, so assuming they didn't miss issues, it's an easy countback. However, I know for a fact that DS did miss some issues. My guess? Morris Heggie had to do the research.

And yes, it was Fatty's peanut butter balloon, so it seems they're actually running them in order - let's hope that lasts.

[Tin Can Tommy]

Hunt Emerson has numbered all his Beano pages as well, but I'd struggle to think of any other artists who've done it.

Ratz isnt numbered in this week's beano.

My guess? Morris Heggie had to do the research.

My guess is that the number of strips they had drawn was just an estimate. Maybe as simple as the number of issues between when they started and when they stopped.

[Digifiend]

Doubt it. If that was the case, DS was nowhere near 2000 - in the early 90s, when he was still drawing Dennis, Bash Street would often be drawn by another artist. And several issues at the turn of the century were full length full cast stories drawn by Mike Pearse, causing all the regular artists to get those weeks off. Thus, his total would potentially be over a hundred short.

As for Ratz, neither was last week's - either he stopped numbering them recently, or they've started painting them out.

[Classic Comics]

Dave numbers his pages in pencil outside of the artwork so his numbers are easy to track. In general terms, in most cases we keep a note of the numbers for payment, so we know exactly when somebody hits a milestone.

[Tin Can Tommy]

This weeks and last weeks issues of the Beano carry the Banner "grown-ups banned". I miss the days when the comic used to make light hearted fun of adult readers.

Also this week's beano cover is the worst for a while. Mainly because of how's walter's face and hands are drawn (he's clearly meant to look shocked but it just looks odd) and to a much lesser extent because im not a particularly big fan of snot based humour.

[Digifiend]

Something. Amazing. is Coming... Dennis and Gnasher's Golden Ticket - Everyone's a winner in: The Beano and The BeanoMAX Amazing news NEXT WEEK!

That's what it says on this week's back cover. Any guesses as to what it is?

[Tin Can Tommy]

I bet it's news on the new TV series of Dennis and Gnasher.

That or a Charlie and the Chocolate factory style competition with the prize being a tour around the Beano office.

[Jonny Whizz]

This weeks and last weeks issues of the Beano carry the Banner "grown-ups banned". I miss the days when the comic used to make light hearted fun of adult readers.

Also this week's beano cover is the worst for a while. Mainly because of how's walter's face and hands are drawn (he's clearly meant to look shocked but it just looks odd) and to a much lesser extent because im not a particularly big fan of snot based humour.

I'm afraid to say I agree with you on both points there - nothing else could enliven the readers' pages in the way that photos of Dads taking a 'sneaky' read of their kids' Beano comics did, and I'm with you on your views of this week's cover as well. Having said that, it's still better than the messy stock-art covers of 2009-2010, so we've seen worse in the recent past.

[swirlythingy]

Speaking of the recent past, the caption "Can you pick a bigger bogey?" was last seen on the Beano cover in issue #3576 (2011-03-12).

It's not just unimaginative, it's unoriginal - and what's worse is that it's nothing to do with the story inside. It's just bogies for the sake of bogies, which is exactly the kind of lazy, simplistic attitude I bemoaned just one month ago. What does the Beano take their readers for these days?

The fashionable thinking in children's comics seems to be trending increasingly towards, "In order for a story to be funny to a seven-year-old, it must appear as if it were written by a seven-year-old." Thanks to the Tree-House and Bash Street 'Show and Tell', we are exposed to the writing of seven-year-olds on a weekly basis, and I can state with confidence that descending to their level isn't going to turn around the Beano.

What next - must comics appear as if they were drawn by seven-year-olds as well? (Admittedly, some of our more conservative members have been known to opine that they already do...)