Nothing to see here

[Jim_Campbell]

the dynamic changes in favour of, oh let's just say, Fleisher.

Alan MacKenzie claims to have re-written some of Fleisher's material (anything bearing 'Falco' co-writing credit had definitely seen some attention, I believe) which somewhat undermines my argument, but I believe Fleisher was/is a very good friend of Richard Burton and GFD, it would appear, wasn't.

Bridges were certainly rebuilt with a great many creators in the post-MacKenzie era, even if some of them couldn't be lured back. That GFD wasn't one of them, as I've already suggested, would logically be as much about the accompanying overhead in terms of editorial time as any consideration of what was 'fashionable' in comics.

Cheers

Jim

[Alski]

Win a free Twothy GN just by voting in the short story comp. Cheers

http://forums.2000adonline.com/index.php/topic,40150.0.html

[Frank]

This all comes back to the nature of comics as a commercial medium. When GFD was feeding the Command Module with iconic characters and distinctive setups, pop-culture puns and fast-paced boys' adventures, it was as part of a collaborative process, with great editors and an incredible team of artists (Gibbons, Kennedy, Wilson, Ewins, Ortiz, hootin' heck!) all doing their thing with his scripts to produce the weekly comics equivalent of ambrosia.  When it was pared back to 'give us a script we can use straight out of the drawer and we'll stick whoever's free on it', the dynamic changes in favour of, oh let's just say, Fleisher.  To quote Truman Capote, 'that's not writing, that's typing'.

You have truth on your side already; marshalling the titans of literature in support of your point is just showing off. That's a succinct and very perceptive analysis of the appeal of GFD's work, and probably the most persuasive explanation of what went wrong.