Comics UK

You may have read the report on the Crikey website by now but if not, issue 16, out this week, is to be the final issue.

Full details here:

http://www.crikeyuk.co.uk/ed.html

I am very sorry to hear about this: CRIKEY! is a valid and noble enterprize that covered many in-depth articles on much subjects comichood. I suppose it's partly due to the accursed state of affairs of the economy. Lots of people are tight-beltening and such.....this is a sad day for comics journalism and my condolences go out to Tony and his small staff, but they can seek solace in the fact that they will leave behind a quality item that will surely aid future UK comics historians.

Sad to hear. Seems a bit sudden though, what was the point of the "Should Crikey! go transatlantic" thread if the magazine is closing anyway?

I'm beginning to think I should stop contributing to comic related publications... first 'Comics International', now 'Crikey'! (if my reading of the 'Look-in strip you never saw' mentioned happens to be mine)

Should I steer clear of "Comic Heroes'... ?

Digifiend wrote:Sad to hear. Seems a bit sudden though, what was the point of the "Should Crikey! go transatlantic" thread if the magazine is closing anyway?

Simple answer-we were looking at ways of broadening its appeal in order to try and reinvigorate it. The decision to end it wasn't mine, it was purely down to finances, and it wasn't made until the very last minute-until last week talks were still ongoing with potential investors who sadly, in the end, didn't come back with anything solid in time. Ultimately, the final decision was Glenn's as he owns Sequential Media Ltd, and he simply didn't feel he could afford to continue. In theory, at least two parties are still 'interested' in possibly buying and relaunching it, or possibly continuing it, initially using material already stockpiled (there's a lot) but there are a lot of things to sort out if that's to happen. For my part, I'm just sorry it ended so suddenly, and immensely gratified by all the messages of commiseration I've received from within the industry and from our loyal readers. It's been fun, and I'll miss it.

Terribly sad to hear this. I have every issue so far, and will be buying the final issue on my next visit to Forbidden Planet in Manchester.

Thanks for 16 wonderful issues - I hope we see you again sooner rather than later.

Finally found the latest issue in my local FP and, while not entirely my cup of tea, it certainly seems to be an impressive package. Such a shame there won't now be a number 17.

(...Just for the record, though, I couldn't help but notice that the first Paddy Payne cover illustrating the Joe Colquhoun appreciation was actually drawn by Gino D'Antonio! One last deliberate error for old time's sake perhaps? )

- Phil Rushton

philcom55 wrote:Finally found the latest issue in my local FP and, while not entirely my cup of tea, it certainly seems to be an impressive package. Such a shame there won't now be a number 17.

(...Just for the record, though, I couldn't help but notice that the first Paddy Payne cover illustrating the Joe Colquhoun appreciation was actually drawn by Gino D'Antonio! One last deliberate error for old time's sake perhaps? )

- Phil Rushton

You'll have to ask Glenn about that-that piece was his baby, he just asked for a dozen random Paddy images, so that's what he got...

tony ingram wrote:

philcom55 wrote:(...Just for the record, though, I couldn't help but notice that the first Paddy Payne cover illustrating the Joe Colquhoun appreciation was actually drawn by Gino D'Antonio! One last deliberate error for old time's sake perhaps? )

- Phil Rushton

You'll have to ask Glenn about that-that piece was his baby, he just asked for a dozen random Paddy images, so that's what he got...

I have to confess it's that sort of slap-dashness which was giving 'Crikey!' a bad name, and which remained in its send-off issue as well. The John Cooper art in the Joe Colquhoun feature should have stuck out a mile! If in doubt, leave it out!

The bland - and inaccurate - captions of 'All art by Ron Embleton' in the quite redundant 'Stingray' feature is the thing that sticks in my mind. At least two of the frames are clearly by Gerry Embleton. And what was the point of this feature exactly? It's not a complete overview, purporting to 'remember' which stories still have original art existing, but does it feature any images from those originals? If anyone wanted just synopses of a handful of stories, I could point them to a quite good website feature with issue-by-issue details of those...

It also perpetuates the myth that TV Century 21 had an initial print run of 750,000, when this article makes it quite suggests very strongly it did not:

http://www.technodelic.pwp.blueyonder.c ... oday01.htm

Which brings me to my own 'Metal Mickey' article, and I'm having to bite my tongue very very hard here. I went to the trouble of supplying scans from the existing artwork, plus some supplementary images like the promo and 'unused cover' (actually a high res mock-up using the published cover and the *next week* version from the previous issue), but I also provided a document with caption information for each, so at least the accompanying information would be accurate. But were these captions used?

I realise space was an issue in this finale, an attempt to get the (one assumes) meaningful contributions to print before the end (Sorry, but who is 'Hatch'? And what was 'Magic Al's Adventures in Hollywood Land' supposed to be for?) but had I realised how 'Boogie Boogie' would be laid out (and by trade I'm a graphic designer/artworker with some 20+ years experience) then I might have asked to handle it myself...

Sorry Glenn and Tony, but even if you didn't like 'Metal Mickey' (and I confess I don't) or 'Look-in', then if this is the deal with contributors who go to the trouble of getting real info from artists and others, and doing the groundwork, then had 'Crikey!' continued, you would have probably just lost one...



I can comment on the pleasingly wide net of other features, though not knowing them well I am not sure how accurate they are. But when I see things I do know are wrong, then it does cast doubts about such things.

But both thumbs up to Blase's 'Comic Oddments', and not just because I know Phil Clarke - it's quirky stuff like this that made 'Crikey!' worth getting. It deserves an issue - or book - by itself. How about it, guys?

Shaqui wrote:
I have to confess it's that sort of slap-dashness which was giving 'Crikey!' a bad name, and which remained in its send-off issue as well. The John Cooper art in the Joe Colquhoun feature should have stuck out a mile! If in doubt, leave it out!

'Slap dash'. Right...

The bland - and inaccurate - captions of 'All art by Ron Embleton' in the quite redundant 'Stingray' feature is the thing that sticks in my mind. At least two of the frames are clearly by Gerry Embleton. And what was the point of this feature exactly? It's not a complete overview, purporting to 'remember' which stories still have original art existing, but does it feature any images from those originals? If anyone wanted just synopses of a handful of stories, I could point them to a quite good website feature with issue-by-issue details of those...

It also perpetuates the myth that TV Century 21 had an initial print run of 750,000, when this article makes it quite suggests very strongly it did not:

http://www.technodelic.pwp.blueyonder.c ... oday01.htm

Which brings me to my own 'Metal Mickey' article, and I'm having to bite my tongue very very hard here. I went to the trouble of supplying scans from the existing artwork, plus some supplementary images like the promo and 'unused cover' (actually a high res mock-up using the published cover and the *next week* version from the previous issue), but I also provided a document with caption information for each, so at least the accompanying information would be accurate. But were these captions used?

I realise space was an issue in this finale, an attempt to get the (one assumes) meaningful contributions to print before the end (Sorry, but who is 'Hatch'? And what was 'Magic Al's Adventures in Hollywood Land' supposed to be for?) but had I realised how 'Boogie Boogie' would be laid out (and by trade I'm a graphic designer/artworker with some 20+ years experience) then I might have asked to handle it myself...

Sorry Glenn and Tony, but even if you didn't like 'Metal Mickey' (and I confess I don't) or 'Look-in', then if this is the deal with contributors who go to the trouble of getting real info from artists and others, and doing the groundwork, then had 'Crikey!' continued, you would have probably just lost one...

I was going to respond to this point by point, including pointing out that the magazine was Glenn's baby and if he wanted a strip he created to appear in the final issue then as far as I'm concerned he had a right to, whether you consider it relevant or not. But I'm frakly too angry to trust myself right now, so I'll shut up. All I will say is; we produced the damn thing for close to three years without pay, to the best of our ability, because we felt it was worth doing. If petty, nitpicking comments like this are any indication, maybe we were wrong.

tony ingram wrote:I was going to respond to this point by point, including pointing out that the magazine was Glenn's baby and if he wanted a strip he created to appear in the final issue then as far as I'm concerned he had a right to, whether you consider it relevant or not.

Point taken but I still don't understand exactly what it was trying to say. Did anyone else? If so, please explain it...

tony ingram wrote:But I'm frakly too angry to trust myself right now, so I'll shut up. All I will say is; we produced the damn thing for close to three years without pay, to the best of our ability, because we felt it was worth doing. If petty, nitpicking comments like this are any indication, maybe we were wrong.

Your contributors were unpaid too.

'Crikey' was starting to raise its game but it did have some very badly researched articles, and I wrote in to complain when incensed about 'The Persuaders' one by Stephen Poppitt. I went to the British Library off my own back (quicker and easier than flitting through my incomplete collection) to make sure I was correcting the inaccuracies and omissions properly.

When I submitted my 'Look-in' article several months ago, noting the criticisms already levelled at 'Crikey', I covered all the points I thought necessary - a quick overview of the 'Metal Mickey' series itself, before analysing the six pages of existing artwork, with comments by as many people involved with it as possible. As noted, I also sent a caption document, to make sure each scan sent had the proper info. Maybe I am wrong but perhaps as editors Glenn and yourself should have been asking contributors for these also? I see it as a fair critique of an often seen problem - and one which happened again in the final issue. Was I wrong to point that out?

I also asked if I could proof a layout, as I was given these when writing for 'Comics International'. You said you would see what could be done but I wasn't even told my article was appearing in the issue - in private emails (prior to the cancelling) you stated perhaps no. 16 or 17. It was only when going to the 'Crikey' website after hearing it was folding I found reference to the 'Look-in' article being used - the only one in that run-down not credited?

Perhaps you have a right to feel angry at my 'nit-picking'. But as a starting contributor who attempted to keep the bar as high as 'Crikey's best articles and get it right, I think I do too.