Comics UK

I seem to recall there being a horrendous number of frames on a single page of Ken Reid art (my mind may be playing tricks on me, but I swear he crammed thirty panels into some of those pages), yet some modern comic strips can seem... well, spartan.

BTW, those text stories in old issues of the Beano and Dandy? Very, very entertaining. Some are probably too non-PC for them to be ever reprinted, but they really do grab me in a way that most text stories - any of those horrid repeat-the-plot-of-the-episode-with-added-photographs things in the magazine format comics - can't manage to accomplish. There's no deft hand behind them, skilled at sweeping the reader up in the adventure.

Raven wrote:Are you aware of the Second Screen Live app that Disney have created, initially for kids to take along to cinema screenings of The Little Mermaid:

Now you are merely trying to make me depressed.

philcom55 wrote:On the other hand I'd say that the 'Toy Story' films managed to appeal to adults and children equally - often by pitching their storytelling at two different levels. Eric Thompson did something similar years ago with his 'knowing' scripts for The Magic Roundabout.

Both properties scripted by geniuses. If someone is THAT good, what incentive is there to write for comics that aren't published by those two over in the colonies?

philcom55 wrote:...But on the other other hand I think it's widely recognized that American comics went through a very damaging phase in the 1970s when the first generation of scripters who'd been fans themselves started to write stories that they wanted see, with impenetrable layers of retroactive continuity that simply baffled the intended readers.

We did it (with mixed results) about twenty years before the US. And nobody foisted convoluted and incomprehensible continuity on the strips they were given.

A few months ago i gave a whole mixed bag of weekly beanos & dandys to my friends 9 year old boy & he has still not touched them but as soon as i buy him a monthly bin weevils or pokemon comic/magazine he laps it up,it seems a lot of the intended audience these days prefer mags with cards & codes & puzzles etc & not actual comic strips though not quite the same context the same applies to her 3 year old daughter whom i buy peppa pig for the mag is not touched just the plastic tat

Kid Robson wrote:When I buy a comic, I'm buying it for the child that yet exists within me.

So, given that you have not been buying The Beano over the last few months, you have clearly been depriving the child that yet exists within you of all the pleasure that he would have found in those comics. It seems really unfair, because the child would not be turning his nose up at the comics for any of the reasons his adult is putting forward for not buying them. He would simply be enjoying them.

Phoenix wrote:

Kid Robson wrote:When I buy a comic, I'm buying it for the child that yet exists within me.

So, given that you have not been buying The Beano over the last few months, you have clearly been depriving the child that yet exists within you of all the pleasure that he would have found in those comics. It seems really unfair, because the child would not be turning his nose up at the comics for any of the reasons his adult is putting forward for not buying them. He would simply be enjoying them.

You're assuming that you know better than me what I would've bought as a child. But no, because when I don't buy a comic as an adult, it's usually for the same reasons that I wouldn't have bought it when I was a kid. The contents page (should that be one of the 'reasons' you were alluding to) only deterred me from browsing through a particular issue, it's not the reason why I don't buy the title. The actual reason why I no longer buy the comic is because it now resembles the doomed Dandy, which I didn't like at all.

But that still comes down to one thing: you are not a child. The tastes of an eight year old in 2013 are not the tastes of a typical 8 year old in 1981, speaking entirely personally. Times change, and we change with them.

You are still on a complete loser if you want comics to be aimed at you, just as I would be. We can express our views, we should be disappointed if a script is so juvenile that there is nothing for us, but we should expect publishers to create content primarily for the target range.

Anything we can enjoy is just a bonus, especially since every adult who buys a comic for themselves is more profit, but once we have ceased being a schoolkid, and until the day when we have a young person to represent, whether a child, nephew/niece or godchild, we don't have any right, moral or otherwise, to complain that we don't like a particular children's comic any more, and as such no publisher is under any obligation to take our views into account.

***

CITV, Boomerang etc might not want to take it, because CBBC have the rights to the Dennis cartoons in the UK, but imagine the impact if an ad was created editing parts of the cartoon titles in with new animations of the main cast of the Beano in NP style and sold to the various channels. TV advertising is not a cheap business, but done right and shown at good times (7am-8.30am and 4pm-7pm weekdays) on a regular basis, it could easily pay for itself, and ought to attract new readers.

Actually Andy, we do have the right to complain about how the comics isn't what we remember, but we are deluding ourselves if we think the Editor is going to take the views of anyone over 16 into consideration if their comic is aimed at the pre-teen market.

Phoenix wrote:So, given that you have not been buying The Beano over the last few months, you have clearly been depriving the child that yet exists within you of all the pleasure that he would have found in those comics. It seems really unfair, because the child would not be turning his nose up at the comics for any of the reasons his adult is putting forward for not buying them. He would simply be enjoying them.

Kid Robson wrote:You're assuming that you know better than me what I would've bought as a child. But no, because when I don't buy a comic as an adult, it's usually for the same reasons that I wouldn't have bought it when I was a kid.

I wasn't assuming anything about what you might or might not have bought as a child. What you bought isn't the issue. It's why you bought whichever title you bought. I am trying to distinguish between the way a child responds to a comic and the way an adult does, and they are different, even if the child and the adult are the same person, separated by many years. I don't accept your second point because your adult's decision to buy or not to buy has been reached by consulting his more sophisticated self, his greater knowledge of the way comics and comic strips are created, his cynicism, world-weariness and so forth. The child's decision is reached more viscerally, in the main by simply liking or not liking the comic. It is not an intellectual response as such. He isn't going to worry if a particular strip doesn't appeal to him, he just won't read it, but it will certainly not affect his enjoyment of the others, and any pages of text that he comes across that don't interest him will not deter him from turning those pages over in search of his favourite strips, that he has probably been looking forward to since finishing his reading of the previous week's issue.

AndyB wrote:But that still comes down to one thing: you are not a child.

Oh yes I am!

AndyB wrote:The tastes of an eight year old in 2013 are not the tastes of a typical 8 year old in 1981, speaking entirely personally. Times change, and we change with them.

Actually, Andy, times haven't changed that much. The only real difference between The Beano of today and of, let's say the '60s to the '90s, is that, with a few exceptions, it isn't drawn as well and it's aimed directly at a younger readership.

AndyB wrote:You are still on a complete loser if you want comics to be aimed at you, just as I would be. We can express our views, we should be disappointed if a script is so juvenile that there is nothing for us, but we should expect publishers to create content primarily for the target range.

I think we're getting tied up in knots over certain words. I don't want The Beano to be 'aimed' at me, as such. I want it to be accessible to everyone who still enjoys funny, well-drawn stories in a comic strip format. I recently linked here to a '50s Dennis page on my blog. I don't know who it was 'aimed' it, but everyone who's seen it seems to be in agreement - it was funny on different levels that a kid or an adult could enjoy. Most adults think that comics are for kids, we're all agreed there. They're never going to buy them and I'm not and never have been suggesting that we should 'aim' The Beano at them in order to persuade them to do so. I'm talking about those adults who are not averse to comics and still might occasionally buy them because it's been the habit of most of their lifetime to do so. Someone like me, in fact. And, increasingly, I'm finding that new, young editors are coming in and trying to put their own stamp on a comic and ruining it in the process.

What I am saying, is that keep the so-called 'target range' in mind by all means, but it should still be possible to do that and still appeal to the teenage or adult contingent that still buy and collect comics - and are willing and eager to do so until some bad choices on the part of 'management' cock it up for them. The Beano may look pretty on its nice shiny paper, but - in my experienced opinion - it's not as good as was. If it were, I'd still be buying it, believe me.

AndyB wrote:Anything we can enjoy is just a bonus, especially since every adult who buys a comic for themselves is more profit, but once we have ceased being a schoolkid, and until the day when we have a young person to represent, whether a child, nephew/niece or godchild, we don't have any right, moral or otherwise, to complain that we don't like a particular children's comic any more, and as such no publisher is under any obligation to take our views into account.

In the nicest possible way, Andy, utter tosh to that part after the 2nd comma. Whether we've got children of our own to represent or not, we're representing all children when we want a dearly cherished part of our childhoods to survive for succeeding generations of children to come. I don't have kids, but I'd resist the lowering of the age of consent to younger than it is now, because I want children to be protected from those who would exploit them for their own ends. Are you saying I shouldn't be allowed to have a say, or not have an expectation of being listened to, simply because I'm not a parent? Okay, perhaps it's not on the same level of importance in the scheme of things, but the same principle applies in either case. I do agree that editors aren't under any obligation to take adult views into account, but neither are they with kids' views either - or anyone's for that matter.

Phoenix wrote:

Phoenix wrote:So, given that you have not been buying The Beano over the last few months, you have clearly been depriving the child that yet exists within you of all the pleasure that he would have found in those comics. It seems really unfair, because the child would not be turning his nose up at the comics for any of the reasons his adult is putting forward for not buying them. He would simply be enjoying them.

Kid Robson wrote:You're assuming that you know better than me what I would've bought as a child. But no, because when I don't buy a comic as an adult, it's usually for the same reasons that I wouldn't have bought it when I was a kid.

I wasn't assuming anything about what you might or might not have bought as a child. What you bought isn't the issue. It's why you bought whichever title you bought. I am trying to distinguish between the way a child responds to a comic and the way an adult does, and they are different, even if the child and the adult are the same person, separated by many years. I don't accept your second point because your adult's decision to buy or not to buy has been reached by consulting his more sophisticated self, his greater knowledge of the way comics and comic strips are created, his cynicism, world-weariness and so forth. The child's decision is reached more viscerally, in the main by simply liking or not liking the comic. It is not an intellectual response as such. He isn't going to worry if a particular strip doesn't appeal to him, he just won't read it, but it will certainly not affect his enjoyment of the others, and any pages of text that he comes across that don't interest him will not deter him from turning those pages over in search of his favourite strips, that he has probably been looking forward to since finishing his reading of the previous week's issue.

That's your view and you're perfectly entitled to it. However, I know me better than you do, and am therefore better qualified to know why I respond to things in a certain way. (And actually you were assuming something about what I might or might not have bought as a child - you were assuming you know why I did or didn't buy it, so for the purpose of this discussion it's the same thing.) I no longer buy The Beano because it isn't as good as it was - and I base that on exactly the same criteria that I applied as a child. Is it funny, do I like it, do I want to spend my money on it? Simple as that.

Kid, you can live in a state of denial if you wish, but you are not a child. You may act like one if you wish, particularly a spoilt one, but the reality is you are older than me, and neither of us is entitled in any shape or form to be treated as a child.

You have said absolutely nothing which justifies the Beano being changed back to the way it used to be just for the sake of one grown man's views, if their research says the exact opposite.

Anybody with any sense will see that the views of the target audience are more important than anybody else's. We all want to see the Beano continue to exist, DCT will be pleased if we continue to buy it, we can say what we think, but in the end DCT will decide in consultation with children what they put in it.

Phoenix wrote:The child's decision is reached more viscerally, in the main by simply liking or not liking the comic. It is not an intellectual response as such.

Kid Robson wrote:I no longer buy The Beano because it isn't as good as it was - and I base that on exactly the same criteria that I applied as a child. Is it funny, do I like it, do I want to spend my money on it?

Well I'm glad to see that you do at least accept one of the two points I was making. We do need to look again though at the other one, the adult's response. Just to reiterate, my point is that an adult can of course choose to buy or not to buy a comic, but he does not make that choice based just on the criteria a child uses to make his decision. It is simply not possible because the adult is no longer a child. You are no longer a child, despite your assertion to the contrary. Like all adults, you and I have our nine-year-old selves within us, and our three-year-old selves, and our fifteen-year-old selves, and all the other selves. But as we grow up, our ability to reason improves, and we leave way behind the simple like/dislike choices of our childhood. As your posts are carefully written and constructed, whether you are making a point of your own or deconstructing someone else's with, as Shiner once memorably put it, your forensic analysis of someone else's point of view, I am accepting that you mean every word you write. How then does this statement

Kid Robson wrote:I base that on exactly the same criteria that I applied as a child.

square with this one,

Kid Robson wrote:when I don't buy a comic as an adult, it's usually for the same reasons that I wouldn't have bought it when I was a kid.

in which you are accepting that there are reasons, now you are an adult, for choosing to buy or not to buy a specific comic, over and above the simple like/dislike choice?

AndyB wrote:Kid, you can live in a state of denial if you wish, but you are not a child. You may act like one if you wish, particularly a spoilt one, but the reality is you are older than me, and neither of us is entitled in any shape or form to be treated as a child.

You have said absolutely nothing which justifies the Beano being changed back to the way it used to be just for the sake of one grown man's views, if their research says the exact opposite.

Anybody with any sense will see that the views of the target audience are more important than anybody else's. We all want to see the Beano continue to exist, DCT will be pleased if we continue to buy it, we can say what we think, but in the end DCT will decide in consultation with children what they put in it.

Seems to me. Andy, that you should have assumed your role as a moderator long before now and upbraided yourself for some of the insulting comments you've 'aimed' at me in this discussion. Here are the facts for those of us living in the real world: The Beano is losing readers. The unprecedented jump in price by 50p a while back tends to suggest that they were trying to compensate for lost revenue from falling sales. The fact that DCT now keep their sales figures a secret hardly indicates a robust and growing circulation. And, in what seems to be your continued efforts to ingratiate yourself into DCT's good books, you continue to to misrepresent what I've actually been saying. I haven't called for The Beano to be returned to a previous state in order to satisfy my personal nostalgia. What I've said is that, because of the harsh realities of econmics, in order to keep the comic going and appeal to a larger readership, it might be wise of DCT to make the comic less expensive. One way of doing this would be to use cheaper paper, drop some colour, have fewer pages. etc. They may one day have to consider it and shouldn't rule it out. Although it seems to me that The Beano was a (more than) perfectly adequate comic a good few years back (and certainly better drawn, in the main), it's not that assessment which spurs my (hopefully helpful) suggestions to ensure the comic's survival in the face of harsh reality. If The Beano is to survive for another 75 years as a published-on-paper periodical, it can't keep putting the increased costs of keeping the comic going onto an ever-diminishing number of readers because, to do so, will chase even more readers away in the long run.

All your assertions are built on a whole series of 'ifs, buts and maybes'. 'If their research says the exact opposite' you merrily trill. But does it? Asking children what they'd like to see in a small-circulation comic which they already buy might not be the best way to find out how to make it appeal to those who don't buy it. What they'd be better doing is asking parents who don't buy The Beano for their kids why they don't. That approach might be more informative.

You have said absolutely nothing that even comes close to being helpful in attempting to ensure the survival of the comic for succeeding generations. Not one useful suggestion or promising idea. It's all been "DCT are doing a great job, they're doing everything right, they're all a bunch of brilliant, talented people, I wouldn't change a thing - can I have a job, pretty please?"

"Anybody with any sense will see that the views of the target audience are more important than anybody else's." Actually, anybody with any sense will see that's not necessarily true when you're talking about young kids, who never really know what they want, why they want it, or even what's best for them. The Beano is in a fragile state compared to how it used to be; if I were the publisher, I'd certainly be interested in what the 'target audience' thought, but I'd definitely not restrict my strategy for increasing (or even sustaining) the readership of a steadily-declining, small circulation periodical to what a bunch of fickle little feckers think.

You said you weren't a company man, Andy - you should be. You'd fit right in with a company who don't seem to have a clue either when it comes to increasing circulation of what was once a great comic.

Kid Robson wrote:Seems to me. Andy, that you should have assumed your role as a moderator long before now and upbraided yourself for some of the insulting comments you've 'aimed' at me in this discussion.

What insulting comments?

Lew Stringer wrote:

Kid Robson wrote:Seems to me. Andy, that you should have assumed your role as a moderator long before now and upbraided yourself for some of the insulting comments you've 'aimed' at me in this discussion.

What insulting comments?

I'd like to know as well. This has been a fairly intelligent thread with no insults thrown at anyone, so I would be interested to know what comments have been considered as insulting.

Phoenix wrote:Well I'm glad to see that you do at least accept one of the two points I was making.

Actually, as I was merely reiterating a point I had already made and which you had missed, you're mistaken in your presumption.

Phoenix wrote:We do need to look again though at the other one, the adult's response. Just to reiterate, my point is that an adult can of course choose to buy or not to buy a comic, but he does not make that choice based just on the criteria a child uses to make his decision. It is simply not possible because the adult is no longer a child. You are no longer a child, despite your assertion to the contrary. Like all adults, you and I have our nine-year-old selves within us, and our three-year-old selves, and our fifteen-year-old selves, and all the other selves. But as we grow up, our ability to reason improves, and we leave way behind the simple like/dislike choices of our childhood. As your posts are carefully written and constructed, whether you are making a point of your own or deconstructing someone else's with, as Shiner once memorably put it, your forensic analysis of someone else's point of view, I am accepting that you mean every word you write. How then does this statement

Kid Robson wrote:I base that on exactly the same criteria that I applied as a child.

square with this one,

Kid Robson wrote:when I don't buy a comic as an adult, it's usually for the same reasons that I wouldn't have bought it when I was a kid.

in which you are accepting that there are reasons, now you are an adult, for choosing to buy or not to buy a specific comic, over and above the simple like/dislike choice?

I don't have to square it because there is no discrepancy. My reasons for buying or not buying a comic today are based on the exact same criteria as when I was a kid, despite your dogmatic assertions to the contrary. Although, as you tediously pointed out, adults can have other reasons for doing or not doing something they did or didn't do as kids, that doesn't necessarily mean that the reasons aren't simply sometimes the same. Being in possession of adult faculties doesn't always mean that we use them to our best (or any) advantage. Or how else are we to explain your response?