Crush...Yiff...Destroy!

Anonymous · Posted: 8/7/2003 1:21:46 AM Post subject: On Schwartz (He's Darker Than We Are!)

Some things to point out:

1) Eric did not begin his climb to fame in the Amiga community on basis of his Amy the Squirrel shorts. He was, in fact, already famous in those circles for his "Aerotoons", short animations involving anthropomorphized air and space craft. These were a big enough hit that Amiga dealers were using Eric's animations for demos (I personally remember several being played at one Amiga dealership in El Paso during 1988). A number also made it onto "Night Flight", a hit late-night show during the late '80s and early '90s. So before Amy the Squirrel ever saw the light of day, Mr. Schwartz had already had his work aired on national television.

2) Eric is right in pointing out that Amy the Squirrel predated Minerva Mink. In point of fact, animators at Warner Brothers originally said that Minerva was created as a parody to some of the pinup art they were seeing in the furry community, and in part as a backlash against the fans who had been obsessing over Tiny Toons. Minerva, like most of the secondary characters from Animaniacs (Mr. Skullhead, Katy Kaboom, etc) was intended to be a one-schtick item, and the Fabio/Nerd werewolf boyfriend was a direct poke at the nerds of furry fandom --- what they were, and what they of course always dreamed of being (and getting). If anything, Minerva draws inspiration from furry dream-babe characters like Amy the Squirrel, not vice-versa.

Also, a personal point: during the early '90s I had contacts linked to the Cal Arts Animation School and possessed a number of tapes of past student projects (some of which were later cleaned up, colorized, and aired nationally on various shows). I decided to capitalize on the growing fascination for gritty/nasty animation and proposed to Ideal Marketing (an Arizona-based distributor) that a series of collected animation shorts would be a good seller.

Not only did Ideal agree, they went to their next trade show and began PRESELLING ORDERS. There were a total of some 25,000 pre-orders, without a single thing being known about the content of the series. I went into overdrive trying to land animation short material of a dark nature. I promoted the tape through Cal Arts, promising high percentages on return to individual artists and asking only for one-time release rights. I also began seeking out animators via my contacts in furry fandom.

The project died because only one animator ever produced any actual material. Most did not even respond (as I found out later, animators generally don't care about percentages and wanted cash up front --- which neither Ideal or myself had).

That one animator was Eric Schwartz, who provided over half an hour of useful material. Only one other animator even promised to produce anything useable, and she never delivered. Unable to fill even one of the planned four 90-minute tapes in the series, I had to cancel the deal with Ideal and sent Mr. Schwartz's tape back with an apology letter explaining the whole mess.

Mr. Schwartz, whatever else may be true or not about him, is in my experience a professional, prompt and courteous individual --- or at least he was as of 1994 when the project finally fell through. I did not keep in touch with him or his career after that point and cannot vouch for him in any way.

Genghis

1) Eric did not begin his climb to fame in the Amiga community on basis of his Amy the Squirrel shorts. He was, in fact, already famous in those circles for his "Aerotoons", short animations involving anthropomorphized air and space craft. These were a big enough hit that Amiga dealers were using Eric's animations for demos (I personally remember several being played at one Amiga dealership in El Paso during 1988). A number also made it onto "Night Flight", a hit late-night show during the late '80s and early '90s. So before Amy the Squirrel ever saw the light of day, Mr. Schwartz had already had his work aired on national television.

Oh god, I remember those. In fact, I may still have a couple of those animations on floppy (double density, of course).
Hell, I'll check the old magazines in the attic next time I go home - If I recall correctly, one of the last issues of Amiga Format magazine I bought contained the beginnings of Sabrina Online - before it went crazy. The fact that people still use that hardware for anything other than Gravity Power and Scorched Tanks, and the fact that Schwartz is still hailed as some sort of legend, speaks volumes about geek loyalty.

Repomancer · Posted: 8/8/2003 7:42:27 AM Post subject:

Good old Night Flight. Best show on television, for a while. Fire up a hoot and watch Reefer Madness straight through, a whole hour of Laurie Anderson videos, then a long segment of experimental computer animation (which in those days, was pretty experimental) then maybe an entire Lenny Bruce routine. Eleven until five. Even the title sequence was really cutting-edge, back when.

Hey Calbeck, if you were at Cal Arts in the early '90s we may have some friends in common. Do you know Mike (Ren And Stimpy) Kim? Blair Wolf? Joe Halbeisen? Ken Clement?

Anonymous · Posted: 8/8/2003 11:29:32 AM Post subject:

Hey Calbeck, if you were at Cal Arts in the early '90s we may have some friends in common. Do you know Mike (Ren And Stimpy) Kim? Blair Wolf? Joe Halbeisen? Ken Clement?

Nope, sorry...I didn't attend Cal Arts, I just knew people there. I've been to a number of student screenings and had video copies of previous screenings.

"Bring Me the Head of Charlie Brown" really sold the idea of the video series, although "Death Park" and many others cinched it. If only I could have gotten some actual animators on board...sheesh. All we wanted were single-release rights, and 99% of the great stuff CA turned out was just moldering away. We were all set to do cleanup and colorization at Ideal's cost, too. Oh well...what could have been...

Anonymous · Posted: 8/8/2003 3:49:06 PM Post subject:

I admit that eric w schwartz does yiff art, but there are much worser, why only eric? why don't you look at international art at google.com
you'll be in chock about what you all find...

Trust me!

Mitch · Posted: 8/8/2003 5:28:32 PM Post subject:

I admit that eric w schwartz does yiff art, but there are much worser, why only eric? why don't you look at international art at google.com
you'll be in chock about what you all find...

Trust me!

Please! It's not the subject matter, it's the denial and secrecy and oh God, have you actually read the piece or not??

mouse · Posted: 8/8/2003 5:33:16 PM Post subject:

i think even more so the worst part is just the audacity of someone saying that people cant draw his characters in a certain way or in a certain scene and then turning around and drawing other peoples (much more well known) characters doing all kinds of shit under a fake name.

if anything , hopefully this article gets him to take all that garbage out of his FAQ

Anonymous · Posted: 8/8/2003 7:18:42 PM Post subject:

I admit that eric w schwartz does yiff art, but there are much worser, why only eric? why don't you look at international art at google.com
you'll be in chock about what you all find...

Trust me!

Please! It's not the subject matter, it's the denial and secrecy and oh God, have you actually read the piece or not??

Well, that's the case in point.Even with the above mentioned points, plus the article itself, he is definetly not the only one suffering from this behavioral pattern (be it this subculture, sequential art or animation).Taking a cue from calbeck's 'minerva wedding' thread, one of the mentioned players, shawn keller (well known animation artist with some roots on the fandom), could be put foward as an example.

While portraying a wholesome front, working in a proffesional manner (animating as we speak a mayor character for 'home on the range', formerly 'sweating bullets'), with a vast fan base (all applicable to eric on a very minor scale), he has produced (scratch that: overproduced) enough sexual copyrighted art (wb+disney) to bury this subculture several layers over (both sequential art and animation works).Samples can be found all over this fandom, fanboys archives, at almost every studio i worked for, even his cubicle or office.One of the animation industry many little know 'secret facts', which he (the same as eric), has denied in many a occasion (let's not bring up his fursuiting side, anatomically correct or not, since it has no bearing on the matter).

So, with so many other artists of shawn's caliber (and lower), with ties to this fandom, guilty of the 'eric's sin', he (eric) is the only one to be zero in an almost zealot manner by this site and (some) members, resulting on the head scratching expressed here, and else where by many on this subject, myself included. Maybe a more extended explanation on this weird 'bias', mitch?.

Anonymous · Posted: 8/8/2003 8:11:01 PM Post subject:

yes i read the whole thing, everyone is who they are, everyone has a crazy way of doing there stuff. so does Eric. So does everyone. But if you like I can give you links of site that make your eyes worser, they have more lies and decievement then you expect. some of them contain animal furry rapement. That's even worse. Or furry childeren's rape. it's to cry out for. I don't aprove what eric is doing right, but it's wrong, very wrong aswell. there's nothing to be done about it. he will keep on doing what he's doing, everyone will, ... so why, that's my question... why keep on doing it, he knows he's wrong, if you look at his RL picture and at his status, living at his mother. you should understand that psychic he's down aswell. No GF, perhaps not even married. how do you express your feelings, I think he's really down somewhere. That's my thought, don't get me wrong, really don't. He's very down. He's talented, c'mon you guys do have to admit that he's got a great talent of art (when it's not yiffy art)

And about his lies. EVERYONE ON THIS FUCKING INTERNET COMMUNITY LIES! either it's about there looks, there social life's there past! When you find someone like that, those are just a few. I know people on the internet, who don't lie that bad to others, just a little ashamed of them self, and shy. Everyone lies, what can you do... Nothing, not you, not I, noone!

I know and some of you know where all right... but that's how it is...

David · Posted: 8/8/2003 8:22:01 PM Post subject:

yes i read the whole thing, everyone is who they are, everyone has a crazy way of doing there stuff. so does Eric. So does everyone. But if you like I can give you links of site that make your eyes worser, they have more lies and decievement then you expect. some of them contain animal furry rapement. That's even worse. Or furry childeren's rape. it's to cry out for. I don't aprove what eric is doing right, but it's wrong, very wrong aswell. there's nothing to be done about it. he will keep on doing what he's doing, everyone will, ... so why, that's my question... why keep on doing it, he knows he's wrong, if you look at his RL picture and at his status, living at his mother. you should understand that psychic he's down aswell. No GF, perhaps not even married. how do you express your feelings, I think he's really down somewhere. That's my thought, don't get me wrong, really don't. He's very down. He's talented, c'mon you guys do have to admit that he's got a great talent of art (when it's not yiffy art)

And about his lies. EVERYONE ON THIS FUCKING INTERNET COMMUNITY LIES! either it's about there looks, there social life's there past! When you find someone like that, those are just a few. I know people on the internet, who don't lie that bad to others, just a little ashamed of them self, and shy. Everyone lies, what can you do... Nothing, not you, not I, noone!

I know and some of you know where all right... but that's how it is...

Two wrongs don’t make a right.

If Eric scwartz went and punched you, then said: “Hey, People have hit people before, so it’s Ok to hit you”

Would you accept that justification?

No matter how bad other people are, it’s no excuse for behaving badly yourself.

mouse · Posted: 8/8/2003 8:32:52 PM Post subject:

Please! It's not the subject matter, it's the denial and secrecy and oh God, have you actually read the piece or not??

While portraying a wholesome front, working in a proffesional manner (animating as we speak a mayor character for 'home on the range', formerly 'sweating bullets'), with a vast fan base (all applicable to eric on a very minor scale), he has produced (scratch that: overproduced) enough sexual copyrighted art (wb+disney) to bury this subculture several layers over (both sequential art and animation works).Samples can be found all over this fandom, fanboys archives, at almost every studio i worked for, even his cubicle or office.One of the animation industry many little know 'secret facts', which he (the same as eric), has denied in many a occasion.

if he denied it, and its true, then hes an idiot. but i dont see how having pictures all over his cubicle would be the behaviour of someone trying to be secretive. so youre gonna have clear this up because it doesnt make sense

(let's not bring up his fursuiting side, anatomically correct or not, since it has no bearing on the matter)

of course it has bearing on the matter, technically there would be no problem with fursuiting. its just costuming. which is why far as i can tell shawn did it. it was supposed to be just for fun

So, with so many other artists of shawn's caliber (and lower), with ties to this fandom, guilty of the 'eric's sin', he (eric) is the only one to be zero in an almost zealot manner by this site and (some) members, resulting on the head scratching expressed here, and else where by many on this subject, myself included. Maybe a more extended explanation on this weird 'bias', mitch?.

i havent seen any thing by shawn keller really so i cant say your wrong, but id like to hear it from some other sources. there is also a huge difference between someone being in the industry or not. far as i have seen its not uncommon for these guys to mess around with studio characters outside of work - and theres really nothing wrong with that in and of itself. i really doubt that shawn is as much of a head case.

p.s. "someone" :
"animal furry rapement" ?? i know what your talking about but that is the weirdest phrasing ive ever seen

seriously i dont think anyone has tried to make eric look WORSE than anyone else, hes just the one that the sights are set on right now - im sure there will be more. and in case you havent noticed people here have said some good things about eric ...well sort of

Anonymous · Posted: 8/8/2003 8:33:16 PM Post subject:

your right on that fact... but is it gonna help by picking on it everytime? No i don't think so. If I get forced not to eat candy by my mum. i keep on doing it sneaky right? well...

Most of the time i get caught or get sick of it. Maybe that's a what might happen to eric?

Anonymous · Posted: 8/8/2003 9:02:07 PM Post subject:

One of the animation industry many little know 'secret facts', which he (the same as eric), has denied in many a occasion.

if he denied it, and its true, then he's an idiot. but i dont see how having pictures all over his cubicle would be the behaviour of someone trying to be secretive. so youre gonna have clear this up because it doesnt make sense

You are right, not a very clear statement there. Let me rectify: shawn has no qualms about having them posted in his cubicle or office (almost a defiant stance towards the 'easily offended women's animation pc patrol' that circulate in certain studios), but have a fur fanboy ask him if he ever drawn sexual copyrighted characters, and he will clam up faster than a fanfur's sphinter looseing up at the sight of an eric's naked lola bunny drawing. I hope i came across clearer now.

Computolio · Posted: 8/9/2003 7:25:41 AM Post subject:

I've been fully aware that Keller's a furry himself for quite some time. I still admire him deeply. I know about the fursuit thing, and I don't care because he's either doing it partially for mockery or knows full well how idiotic it all looks. Or both.

DNVar: Your story about A MOTHERFUCKING DISNEY EMPLOYEE COVERING HIS CUBICLE WITH FURRY FAN-PORNO is absolutely laughable, ESPECIALLY without proof. Got any?

mouse · Posted: 8/9/2003 9:03:50 AM Post subject:

I know about the fursuit thing, and I don't care because he's either doing it partially for mockery or knows full well how idiotic it all looks. Or both.

well, ill have to disagree with you here:

this is a quote from the comic book (i got his off the horrifying look at the furries news item on flayrah, the top read story in the top 10 there)

"Almost every costumer (or 'Fursuiter' as they are known in the fan world) we've come across promotes the idea that the only true way of having fun in a suit is by doing what we refer to in technical language as 'The Nasty'. This would explain the caked, matted fur soaked with bodily fluids that often appears in the crotch region of these vermin."

this is shawn keller saying this. now far as i know he has also contributed to the fursuit faq*. the tone of what he is saying here is that these people have ruined fursuiting...that it was originally just something fun. which i cant argue with that. i wouldnt mind hanging out with a bunch of mascots. now if they got holes cut in the suits or or other..alterations...thats a different story.

*this can be confirmed at the FAQ itself which i believe is @:
[url>http://www.fursuit.org/faq/
and i originally read it i think @ pressed fur
[url>http://pressedfur.batcave.net/intro.html

DNVar: Your story about A MOTHERFUCKING DISNEY EMPLOYEE COVERING HIS CUBICLE WITH FURRY FAN-PORNO is absolutely laughable, ESPECIALLY without proof. Got any?

i was about to ask him the same thing. i dont see how he could have explicit artwork up on a desk at work. in the office i work at people have been dragged into HR over swimsuit calendars and such. i mean its a little bit different because its an animation studio, but still these pictures could not be that explicit if there even are any. Id like to know how DNVar got this information. im sure no one can just stroll into those offices.and i doubt YOU work there, dnvar, judging by your wording.

Anonymous · Posted: 8/9/2003 3:42:19 PM Post subject:

DNVar: Your story about A MOTHERFUCKING DISNEY EMPLOYEE COVERING HIS CUBICLE WITH FURRY FAN-PORNO is absolutely laughable, ESPECIALLY without proof. Got any?

Woah. Easy up on the shift key there, kid, it makes you look to much like a raving foaming fanboy. And inserting profanity does not add points to your intelligence equation.

Computolio(?), we were talking about the eric bias, or as mitch would say, did you read the post?, anyways, one of the points was that, yes shawn did or does have copyrighted characters in sexy and sexual positions, not 'FURRY FAN-PORNO'. Fair to say, he is not the only one, i had a couple up on mine, courtesy of barry cadwell. As for proof, why don't you unglue your finger from the shift key, manage to get yourself invited to a tour of one of the studios, or ask one of your furry friends who is inside, or has knowloadge the animation industry, tell little computolio some facts.

But after reading the rest of the site, i have the vague suspition that your true and obsesion is eric and what it looks like your feverish obsesion to 'expose' him to the world.What's wrong, computolio, eric wasn't drawing enough of your (insert furry fantasy) porn?.

Anonymous · Posted: 8/9/2003 4:03:28 PM Post subject:

i was about to ask him the same thing. i dont see how he could have explicit artwork up on a desk at work.

He (we) had (see my response to computolio).

in the office i work at people have been dragged into HR over swimsuit calendars and such.

Some had.Shawn was always a little more defiant about it.

i mean its a little bit different because its an animation studio, but still these pictures could not be that explicit if there even are any. Id like to know how DNVar got this information.

Because i have worked at some of those studios? (duh).

im sure no one can just stroll into those offices.

Specially after 9/11.Even bringing friends and family over is a pain.Can't waltz on the wb lot to grab a bite on the cafeteria anymore, either.

and i doubt YOU work there, dnvar, judging by your wording.

(???) 'K.Guess i can not argue with that 'logic' statement there.Better get a refund at the union for all these years of non-work.

What's apparent is that we are not going to get a response regarding the 'eric' bias matter, and with some of the members zero-ing on minutia instead of elaborating, or going completly left field, i guess i will leave someone else to try a response.I should have heed the old saying: 'never try argue logically with a furry.It annoys you, and confuses the furry'.

Anonymous · Posted: 8/9/2003 7:12:47 PM Post subject:

http://us.vclart.net/vcl/Artists/Alex-Spastic/oTHeR%20%20pEoPles%20%20ChaRaCtErS/zig_zagged.JPG

lol

mouse · Posted: 8/9/2003 7:33:05 PM Post subject:

(???) 'K.Guess i can not argue with that 'logic' statement there.Better get a refund at the union for all these years of non-work.

what the fuck is this supposed to mean?

Samples can be found all over this fandom, fanboys archives, at almost every studio i worked for, even his cubicle or office.

this is the "wording" i am refering to specifically

if you worked there, and you seen it, why can you not identify his work space as an office or a cubicle...which is it ? where would other studios come in, how many does shawn work at ?

Anonymous · Posted: 8/9/2003 8:03:31 PM Post subject:

Samples can be found all over this fandom, fanboys archives, at almost every studio i worked for, even his cubicle or office.

this is the "wording" i am refering to specifically

if you worked there, and you seen it, why can you not identify his work space as an office or a cubicle...which is it ? where would other studios come in, how many does shawn work at ?

For god's sake. Here, 'mouse', let me simplify: some animation people may work long times at the same studios, but mostly (specially in today's economic climate), they move from studio to studio, and sometimes, depending on your job, position or circumstances, you may get a cublicle OR an office.Shawn has worked in many studios, in different projects, either in a cubicle OR an office.

Are you really this thick, or is this some inane way not to address the first discussed 'eric bias'?.Jeezuz krist!.Talking to you furs is like an neverending exercise on demented futility!.Tell you what, 'mouse', yes, 'eric' is the anticrist, any other opinions are meaningless, i do not work in animation, and you kids can continue playing by yourselfs, i'm out of here, enjoy the veal.

(like talking to two year olds)

mouse · Posted: 8/9/2003 8:15:22 PM Post subject:

For god's sake. Here, 'mouse', let me simplify: some animation people may work long times at the same studios, but mostly (specially in today's economic climate), they move from studio to studio, and sometimes, depending on your job, position or circumstances, you may get a cublicle OR an office.Shawn has worked in many studios, in different projects, either in a cubicle OR an office.

Are you really this thick, or is this some inane way not to address the first discussed 'eric bias'?.Jeezuz krist!.Talking to you furs is like an neverending exercise on demented futility!.Tell you what, 'mouse', yes, 'eric' is the anticrist, any other opinions are meaningless, i do not work in animation, and you kids can continue playing by yourselfs, i'm out of here, enjoy the veal.

(like talking to two year olds)

first things first, you stupid motherfucker, im not a furry

ive never worked in the animation industry so technically i might not know that shit, but are you going to sit here and fucking tell everyone shawn keller has has cartoon porn pics up on his desk at work, not once, but for his entire career in the field??!? across all studios hes ever worked at?

your fucking full of shit

Computolio · Posted: 8/10/2003 12:48:15 AM Post subject:

Woah. Easy up on the shift key there, kid, it makes you look to much like a raving foaming fanboy. And inserting profanity does not add points to your intelligence equation.

I'm sorry, but I have it on good authority that Disney keeps a pretty tight lid on their animators. Restrictions are placed on what they can and can't do with company time and resources. At least, that's what I've been told; it makes perfect sense when you take the company's preoccupation with family-friendliness into account.

Keller's been something of an oddity, I admit. I've always wondered why he hasn't gotten in trouble for even acknowledging that furries exist, much less being one or making fun of them in published works or worse. Perhaps it has something to do with his senority within the ranks; he's probably a very valuable asset to his employer(s) and thus his heavy eccentricities have been tolerated.

Computolio(?), we were talking about the eric bias, or as mitch would say, did you read the post?, anyways, one of the points was that, yes shawn did or does have copyrighted characters in sexy and sexual positions, not 'FURRY FAN-PORNO'. Fair to say, he is not the only one, i had a couple up on mine, courtesy of barry cadwell. As for proof, why don't you unglue your finger from the shift key, manage to get yourself invited to a tour of one of the studios, or ask one of your furry friends who is inside, or has knowloadge the animation industry, tell little computolio some facts.

Problem is, I DO know someone with connections to the animation industry, and everything she's said on the subject would seem to indicate that drawing "copyrighted characters in sexy and sexual positions" is the quickest way to get yourself fired in the American animation industry.

Funny thing is though, you may be right in some way. I have heard that Keller HAS drawn stuff of a sexual nature and kept it mostly private (i.e. off the internet). Nobody I've spoken to has actually seen this material, and since an effort is made to keep it private, nobody seems to care.

But after reading the rest of the site, i have the vague suspition that your true and obsesion is eric and what it looks like your feverish obsesion to 'expose' him to the world. What's wrong, computolio, eric wasn't drawing enough of your (insert furry fantasy) porn?.

The intent is not to "expose him to the world"; he's done a brilliant job of that himself. The intent was to see what exactly would happen if what everyone knew abut him was actually put into writing in a semi-permanent form. It was challenging him to drop his facade even for a second, something I wanted to do back in the Portal Of Evil days but couldn't.

If Shawn Keller is indeed "pulling an Eric" as you suggest, then for the love of God why do I have to care? If he's upset that people are drawing porn of characters he's animated while he himself does the same thing, good for him. To my knowledge, Keller hasn't called the ISPs of people who piss him off in that way yet. Oh, and did I mention Keller's nowhere near as pissy? I have yet to see a "fan art guidelines" page sprout up at Furryfans.com.

Remember when William Shatner was on Saturday Night live? Remember the "get a life" sketch, where he addresses a Star Trek convention and breaks down, insulting all the shut-ins in front of him? Keller's comics are basically a re-working of that gag. True, he's actually serious to some degree, and true, he's almost a shut-in himself, but that doesn't make his message any less kickass and funny.

That last line just SCREAMS troll, by the way. You call me a furry, but you're using a furry flame tactic as old as Portal Of Evil itself. It didn't work there; why did you think it would work here? Why do you even care?

mouse · Posted: 8/10/2003 3:37:45 AM Post subject:

I'm sorry, but I have it on good authority that Disney keeps a pretty tight lid on their animators. Restrictions are placed on what they can and can't do with company time and resources. At least, that's what I've been told; it makes perfect sense when you take the company's preoccupation with family-friendliness into account.

also remember though: all that bizarre shit that has shown up in disney films - the word "sex" appearing in the stars in the lion king. the whispering voice in alladin saying "teenagers take off your clothes". theres many more but these are only two ive witnessed that are undeniable. alot of the other ones i think are debateable.

Keller's been something of an oddity, I admit. I've always wondered why he hasn't gotten in trouble for even acknowledging that furries exist, much less being one or making fun of them in published works or worse. Perhaps it has something to do with his senority within the ranks; he's probably a very valuable asset to his employer(s) and thus his heavy eccentricities have been tolerated.

not really, employers cant go after employees for who they associate with or what they do outside of work. this is really the ONLY situation that could arise where furries could legitimately claim discrimination - and win. if someone comes into work, does thier job, does it well, doesnt disrupt the work environment, then there is no discussion outside of that.

plus i will always point to mike kazalah,
while he probably doesnt identify himself as furry specifically (most likely because of all the fan shit) , bottom line is that he has been in the industry for so long (since the 60's), and has enough allies that realistically no one can bother him about what he does in his personal comics. he genuinely loves drawing funny animals from what i can tell. but hes an animator, writer, inks all kinds of comics..he will never have any problem getting work.

to go off on a slight tangent here, but its till very relevant id like to point out , in his graphic novel the Suit, which actually does depict sexual contact between a human and anthromorph dog (in what i can only describe as being in a tasteful manner). now im not sure why, but if you look at the submission guidelines for Radio comix's Genus, this is expressly prohibited...what gives?

by the way mike kazaleh is the only person i have ever seen actually draw anatomically correct, nude "funny-animals" (not FURRIES, but FUNNY ANIMALS) and have the scene be completely un-pornographic, even completely devoid of sexual connotation

i speak specifically of 80%-90% of his 2 art portfolio comics: "the mean, green, bondo machine!" , and "short on plot!"

[url>http://mupress.com

Problem is, I DO know someone with connections to the animation industry, and everything she's said on the subject would seem to indicate that drawing "copyrighted characters in sexy and sexual positions" is the quickest way to get yourself fired in the American animation industry.

if you worked at warner bros and you drew some pictures of the characters, youd probably get into trouble, but i cant see it getting you blacklisted. then again these places are probably mired in political horseshit just like hollywood is.

i would probably put shawn keller, mike kazaleh and lon smart (herbiehamill) all in the same "zone" , they are all a little different but you can see the similarities. they are the "professional furry"

as to whether kazaleh is a "furry"
if you read "the suit", which i personally think is his masterpiece, it hits on so many points that i think are universal thoughout the fandom, if he put anypart of himself into this then yes definatly...hes just avoiding the fandom...and who can blame him.

if not then this was a total "fursploitation" novel, but i really dont even like saying that, because i truely believe this is a story he really wanted to tell (and did an absolutely amazing job doing so),worked really hard on it , and it has deep multi-layered meaning. it also goes to demonstrate how thouroughly he has mastered body language and facial expression on even the simplest of "cartoon" characters, and can communicate volumes in what is for the most part a near-empty panel

Mitch · Posted: 8/10/2003 10:40:14 AM Post subject:

plus i will always point to mike kazalah,
while he probably doesnt identify himself as furry specifically (most likely because of all the fan shit)

You reminded me - Reed Waller and Stan Sakai have both said that they're not "furry" artists, and who can blame them? It doesn't stop the fans from saying "Oh yeah, but your artwork's furry" and putting their comix in lists of "furry comix". Also, Stan Sakai is Guest of Honour at Anthrocon '04. I'd like to hear what he makes of it.

mouse · Posted: 8/11/2003 2:32:45 AM Post subject:

just for reference here is shawn kellers post ..well actually it was an email to a guy he gave permission to post on A.F.F.

From: ilr (ilr@rof.net)
Subject: Shawn Keller Responds!
Newsgroups: alt.fan.furry
Date: 2001-06-18 23:39:34 PST

======================<BEGIN>===========================
>I'd understand if this falls on deaf ears, but I'd like to say that
>many in the "dreaded" furry-fandom are more open minded than
>the notorious "Furplay".

Oh no! This won't fall on deaf ears at all. It may take me a while to
respond with my hectic work schedule and trying to do this web-site
stuff at the same time. I really appreciate your letter and you concerns.
You're more than welcome to post this up on the newsgroups since
I'm really computer illiterate and wouldn't know how to post anything
there. It's been plenty difficult trying to learn enough of Flash to
do the work that's already appeared on the site.

About the site: well, the site is intended for us all to have a good
chuckle, and not intended to make fun of anyone. I've specifically made
sure that no one was directly caricatured. The Minerva Squirrel page
was a joke in itself, as I pretty much just drew Minerva Mink from model
but re-colored her to be a different character. The guy that looks like
Mitch Beiro is actually based on Tony Fucile. Tony was the animator who
worked on Mufasa in the Lion King. In fact, all of the characters you'll see
in the pages already there, and ones to come are either just made-up fans,
or are drawings based on friends of mine: Disney animators, producers
and so on.

The reason why the site is so mysterious is because a friend of mine was
given an advance copy of my new comic that is coming out, and he
mentioned it on a site called Animation Nation, and posted the web site
address. When he made that little statement I just about dropped my drawers,
because I wasn't intending to work on the site until a little closer to the
date of the San Diego Comic Con. So in one week I had to teach myself
Flash Animation and Adobe GoLive, and animate something to be there
when people went to it. I admit the site appears crude at the moment
and without much explanation for it being there. The programs keep
fighting me all the way, which is why there's no e-mail button for feedback
on the site yet and no pre-loaders or other little finishing touches.

This is not a malicious attack from an outsider, as some people have
suggested. Far from it. I've been around Furry Fandom since the early 80's
and have been working at Disney as an animator for about 22 years now.
I enjoy drawing sassy animal characters and even build and wear my
costumes at the conventions. You probably last saw me at Further
Confusion as Secret Squirrel, standing in the corner like a dope. I have
built a big, sexy girl rabbit doll that the entire animation industry
jokingly refers to as my "wife" So what better person to do a satirical
look at ourselves than one of our own who's been a furry far since most
of today's fans were in kindergarden (egad! I'm getting old!)

Upcoming pages will have cartoon animal characters both male and
female, and lots of silly fans. I want to try get across the feel of
the bawdy humor of the old Benny Hill show and make an amusing
contrast between these beautiful animal characters and goofy,
disgusting fans (and yes, I think we all understand that not all
fans are like this!)

The next page I'm working on, (I dont know when it'll get done
because I'm locked in mortal combat with Flash and Adobe
GoLive) is a section with a new, re-designed Cheshire Cat.
I hope it'll be funny and entertaining with a dab of humpiness
to it.:)

If you like the web pages, then you'll love the comic. It's in a very
similar vein, but done up like a copy of Mad Magazine. The few
people that have seen it thought it was really funny and that
you'd all like it.

Folks who still think my only purpose is to poke fun should be
pleasantly surprised by my follow-up comic. It's something I think
furries will really enjoy. It's a science-fiction story about a
cartoon horse. You can see the previews of it at the San Diego
Comic-Con as well as pick up a copy of the Furries comic. This
new book will be an on-going story and it's what I've really been
spending most of my effort on lately.

Well, I hope this dispells any rumors about what the site is all
about -- and, if there's anyone out there who knows Flash and
Adobe GoLive, please drop me a line! You can also easily reach
me on FurryMuck (yes, I have a character there too, he's the
Cheshire Cat who, like me, enjoys playful teasing, but is not
downright evil.) Thanks for the e-mail, and if there's a page you'd
like to see animated, including me as a weasel with mange as
Furplay has suggested, please let me know :)

Sincerely,

Shawn Keller
======================<END>===========================

I haven't even read it all yet, I got it 10 seconds ago and am posting it on the fly.
-Ilr

heres the link to this on Pressed Fur
[url>http://pressedfur.coolfreepages.com/backlash/furryfans/keller-post.html
and heres so you can see the thread in context
[url>http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&safe=off&threadm=9gn0fs%24aup%241%40raccoon.fur.com&rnum=1&prev=/groups%3Fq%3Dshawn%2Bkeller%2Bresponds%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26ie%3DUTF-8%26safe%3Doff%26selm%3D9gn0fs%2524aup%25241%2540raccoon.fur.com%26rnum%3D1

although there was basically zero discussion of what shawn had wrote...

sorry but i will not allow shawn kellers furriness to be downplayed
i like furryfans.com as much as the next guy
and im not the type to call someone a "furry" as an insult either , because as ive said many times: it doesnt , or at least shouldnt have been that way

shawn keller is what a "furry" should be

You reminded me - Reed Waller and Stan Sakai have both said that they're not "furry" artists, and who can blame them? It doesn't stop the fans from saying "Oh yeah, but your artwork's furry" and putting their comix in lists of "furry comix". Also, Stan Sakai is Guest of Honour at Anthrocon '04. I'd like to hear what he makes of it.

ya well that is behaviour i would expect from furry fans, BUT the only thing that i will side with the fans on is that all this shit stems from the same point in time, the same places, the same comics. so in a way yes that true

sakai can say whatever he wants , but the fact is history is what it is
im kind of shocked that fandom DID NOT split in half at one point
whether he hates them or not, this IS his fanbase or would have been. i bet a lot of usagi fans will be at anthrocon, which could prove to be a good thing

anyway there is no one to blame for what happened to furry other than the people who walked away. its undeniable...its thier fault...again i cant nessecarily blame them, but when all the fuck-ups came, by leaving - they basically handed the fandom over to them. realistically if everyone who was into anthro art said that they were a furry and stopped fucking worrying about what a couple weirdos do and what other people thought of them, and said "thats not what its about, that guy is an asshole" then that portion of the fandom wouldve been literally swept under the carpet forever. but no one stands up for themselves or what they believe in anymore ... and by not doign anything, IT GREW
so ya get what ya pay for i guess

DA · Posted: 8/11/2003 3:19:22 PM Post subject: Well I dunno about anyone else...

But I know people in the industry and I seriously doubt anyone would be allowed to just paper the walls of their cubicle with what amounts to drawn porn, pin-ups just...nude life sketches...porn no...

Though I haven't seen a shred of evidence that this DNVar person works for WB, prove it too us, it's all to easy to say something but back it up.

May I just state for a record that I have nothing against Eric, but I do find it bizarre that he draws adult stuff then turns around and says no-one else can draw it, I recall one picture of a female he did giving a male oral.

Anonymous · Posted: 8/14/2003 8:16:03 PM Post subject:

Hey Calbeck, if you were at Cal Arts in the early '90s we may have some friends in common. Do you know Mike (Ren And Stimpy) Kim? Blair Wolf? Joe Halbeisen? Ken Clement?

Nope, sorry...I didn't attend Cal Arts, I just knew people there. I've been to a number of student screenings and had video copies of previous screenings.

"Bring Me the Head of Charlie Brown" really sold the idea of the video series, although "Death Park" and many others cinched it. If only I could have gotten some actual animators on board...sheesh. All we wanted were single-release rights, and 99% of the great stuff CA turned out was just moldering away. We were all set to do cleanup and colorization at Ideal's cost, too. Oh well...what could have been...

I actually am one of the CalArts alumni contacted for this project. I can say exactly why none of the people contacted produced anything or delivered anything.

1. A lot of the films used copywrited music and/or characters.
2. The animator may be embaressed to let people see their early work.
3. Most of the graduates had very lucrative jobs (at that point in time) and didn't need the money.
4. Due to working, they didn't have the time or inclination to do anything new as a side project.
5. A lot of the films would have required extensive additonal work and/or revisions by the artist, which, due to reasons 3 and 4, they were not going to do.

My own personal reasons for not jumping on board? #1 and #2.

Nighthawk

Anonymous · Posted: 8/16/2003 7:16:38 PM Post subject:

[quote="mouse>i havent seen any thing by shawn keller really so i cant say your wrong, but id like to hear it from some other sources. there is also a huge difference between someone being in the industry or not. far as i have seen its not uncommon for these guys to mess around with studio characters outside of work - and theres really nothing wrong with that in and of itself. i really doubt that shawn is as much of a head case.

The long and short of it is that Shawn Keller is exemplary of "Burned Fur Syndrome". He's not a head case, so much as he's fearful for his job as one of Disney's top animators.

Furry fandom did not get its bad rep in the animation community because some folks from Disney/WB dropped in at a furrycon --- oh, no. Fact is, a handful of wannabe animators who'd made a name for themselves inside furry fandom decided to take their portfolios to virtually every animation house in the US, looking for a job.

Of these, most included porn in their portfolios, believing that it would be just one more indicator of their skills. This porn, in several cases, involved copyrighted characters (particularly WB's Tiny Toons) doing the nasty in various creative and disturbing ways.

Needless to say, execs at WB and Disney were not only not impressed, but outright horrified. In one infamous conversation, an exec pointed out that the Tiny Toons were KIDS, none of whom were even theoretically past the age of consent, making this material pedophilia. The response was a blinking stare, followed by "So?". The guy simply didn't get what was wrong --- he'd been selling prints of this kind of thing for years by that time.

Because of this handful of total morons, it became death itself to list any connections to furry fandom on one's resume. The prevailing attitude was that a furry might be highly talented, but also might try slipping something inappropriate past the censors (which itself had long been a US animation tradition, but which had rarely gone past the merely risque level). This was also around the time of the brouhaha over the "Little Mermaid penis" and similar incidents, which made the corporadoes even more jumpy.

Shawn Keller's ties to furry fandom would be death for anyone else in the animation community, except that he's VERY good at what he does and already became highly placed at Disney before his ties were found out.

A healthy part of Shawn's open disdain for the fandom is actually self-defense --- he does NOT want to be pigeonholed as a furry porn king, regardless of his past history of furry smut production, because it would kill his career if he ever left Disney. Even if he never left, such a reputation might get him relegated to the second tier or worse. The rest of Shawn's problem is his outrage over the "theft" of copyrighted characters, which is a real problem, but also one he's more than happy to go overboard on.

David · Posted: 8/16/2003 7:24:55 PM Post subject:

The long and short of it is that Shawn Keller is exemplary of "Burned Fur Syndrome". He's not a head case, so much as he's fearful for his job as one of Disney's top animators.

So he should be:

http://www.mouseplanet.com/david/dk030814.htm

Anonymous · Posted: 8/16/2003 7:37:02 PM Post subject:

plus i will always point to mike kazalah,
while he probably doesnt identify himself as furry specifically

Oh, he is. Or was. Yet another of those folks who dropped out of the fandom to (and reasonably so) protect their animation credentials.

I've known Mike on and off for years. We met at a ConFurence. Much of his art is scattered through early furfandom material (both comics and fanzines). His excellent though now-defunct comic, "Captain Jack", was produced specifically to cater to furry fans back in the late '80s and early '90s. In fact, most "Captain Jack" material originally appeared in furry anthology comics and fanzines.

His wife, Tracy, was once a friend of mine, until we had a falling out over what I considered role-play (and she considered deathly serious). She was always a hard-core furry fan, despite the fact that she never produced porn. She also produced a number of animation pieces and studied at CalArts (her student work on "The Ballad of Del Gato" was hilarious). Tracy was involved in a large number of furry fanzines.

So, yes, the Kazalehs have a strong background in furry fandom, although like many they have fled its ever-worsening reputation.

to go off on a slight tangent here, but its till very relevant id like to point out , in his graphic novel the Suit, which actually does depict sexual contact between a human and anthromorph dog (in what i can only describe as being in a tasteful manner). now im not sure why, but if you look at the submission guidelines for Radio comix's Genus, this is expressly prohibited...what gives?

Radio, as with most independently-run comic publishers, often makes exceptions on a case-by-case basis. Mike got away with it because, as you said, it was done tastefully (also, he's MIKE FREAKIN' KAZALEH).

by the way mike kazaleh is the only person i have ever seen actually draw anatomically correct, nude "funny-animals" (not FURRIES, but FUNNY ANIMALS) and have the scene be completely un-pornographic, even completely devoid of sexual connotation

i speak specifically of 80%-90% of his 2 art portfolio comics: "the mean, green, bondo machine!" , and "short on plot!"

Both of which were drawn up for, and sold to, furries. Sorry to bust your bubble there...-;)

Anonymous · Posted: 8/16/2003 7:51:40 PM Post subject:

You reminded me - Reed Waller and Stan Sakai have both said that they're not "furry" artists, and who can blame them? It doesn't stop the fans from saying "Oh yeah, but your artwork's furry" and putting their comix in lists of "furry comix". Also, Stan Sakai is Guest of Honour at Anthrocon '04. I'd like to hear what he makes of it.

Stan Sakai has long been a member of "Rowrbrazzle", furry fandom's original and longest-running fanzine. Also, "Usagi Yojimbo" got its start in furry anthology comics before it took off on its own accord. Stan had already made a name for himself in the comics industry, of course, but "only" as a member of Sergio Aragones' "Groo" team.

If not for early furry fandom, Stan would have had no publisher for "Usagi". All the funny-animal comics being done at the time, with the strict exception of "Critters" (the aforementioned anthology, put out by the venerable Fantagraphics), were self-published. And "Critters" died with issue #50, a victim of piss-poor editorial control.

Stan was lucky enough to hit it off with Eastman and Laird, who let Stan bring his samurai rabbit into the TMNT universe and ultimately an appearance in their TV show. He even got an Usagi action figure out of it, and enough momentum to launch his own title under the Mirage imprint. Furry fandom was Stan Sakai's springboard, and he always maintained discreet ties within the fandom itself. No, to my knowledge, he has never done porn. Before you ask.

As to Reed Waller, he has more call than anyone to say he's not a member of furry fandom. To my knowledge, he has never been involved in any furry fanzines, never published in any furry comics, and has had no involvement with any furry-related projects otherwise. He and Kate Worley were, once, guests of honor at a ConFurence, but that's it.

Reed produced "Omaha the Cat Dancer" before furry fandom ever actually existed. He did it largely as a dare for a sci-fi/cartooning fanzine called "Vootie", and it took on a life of its own to become one of America's most famous underground comics. Some have compared Waller's "Omaha" work favorably to R. Crumb's "Fritz the Cat", and while Fritz could probably be considered exemplary of the "sex-crazed furry" stereotype, Crumb himself predated the fandom by decades.

In the case of Waller and Crumb, the best description would be that "great minds run in the same gutters". -:)

Anonymous · Posted: 8/16/2003 8:09:11 PM Post subject:

I actually am one of the CalArts alumni contacted for this project. I can say exactly why none of the people contacted produced anything or delivered anything.

1. A lot of the films used copywrited music and/or characters.

Now, the music I can understand, although at the time I didn't (and in fact it didn't even occur to me until you mentioned it). At least, the copyrighted material. However, much (if not most) of the music was actually public-domain material, such as classical music. And in other cases, what was used would qualify under "fair use" protections and therefore be legal to use.

As to the characters being copyrighted, that's protected under parody law --- and ALL of the cases involving copyrighted characters were parodies. This isn't just legalistic supposition, either: Mad Magazine has used copyrighted characters for parody purposes for decades. I still remember how they loved to futz with the Peanuts gang.

2. The animator may be embaressed to let people see their early work.

Now that's entirely reasonable. And, in fact, it's the main reason I figured no one responded. I know I hate seeing MY old crap art. Then again, look at what makes it into Spike and Mike these days...and I should add that some of the material I was trying to get did in fact appear on TV (and in Spike and Mike) at a later date. Whoever agreed to it simply got paid a lot less in the end.

3. Most of the graduates had very lucrative jobs (at that point in time) and didn't need the money.

True.

4. Due to working, they didn't have the time or inclination to do anything new as a side project.

No time needed. All work was to be done by my own outfit and Ideal. The only thing the animator needed to do --- and that was only if they wanted --- was send any input or material they might like to include. If they wanted something cut, fine, if they wanted to add something, fine too. If they simply wanted us to run the archived material we had, as-is, we'd do that too.

The whole idea was to make things totally effortless for the animator, since I knew that bugging them to do something extra would in itself likely kill any potential deal.

5. A lot of the films would have required extensive additonal work and/or revisions by the artist, which, due to reasons 3 and 4, they were not going to do.

Again, that was on basis of what the animator wanted. Ideal, in fact, was perfectly willing to run the pencil-tests as-is. And the pre-sales had gone through with not a lick of material being seen at all at the trade show. It sold strictly on the strength of being animation of a mean-spirited nature.

My own personal reasons for not jumping on board? #1 and #2.

Fair enough. I'm glad you piped up on this in any event: I never DID get any feedback on it and was left to pure guesswork as to why no one responded.

mouse · Posted: 8/16/2003 8:32:19 PM Post subject:

by the way mike kazaleh is the only person i have ever seen actually draw anatomically correct, nude "funny-animals" (not FURRIES, but FUNNY ANIMALS) and have the scene be completely un-pornographic, even completely devoid of sexual connotation

i speak specifically of 80%-90% of his 2 art portfolio comics: "the mean, green, bondo machine!" , and "short on plot!"

Both of which were drawn up for, and sold to, furries. Sorry to bust your bubble there...-;)

just so you know scott, you're not bursting my bubble at all
in fact i think you may be misinterpreting my posts
we're probably on the same brainwave, or close to it regarding this stuff

when i was stressing the term funny animals, i was mainly just refering to his cartoony style. as opposed to more anatomically and technically correct or "realistic" furry art

and sort of pointing out that you usually DO NOT see adult material in that cartoon style.

the Suit: i wondered that it was some law that radio comix was covering thier ass for.

anyway , the main point i was getting at with all of this is just that the level of professionalism is important. if something has a lot of quality its hard to criticize it. a lot of the "professionals" left, so furry lost tons of credibility when they did.

like how shawn keller has his fursuits. (some of them anatomically correct)ive havent seen pictures of any of his fursuits , but from what i understand he's one of the best. he also works at disney (or at least he DID, not anymore). its just harder to criticize him, i think. if you take the time to do something right, it kinda doesnt matter if its weird or not.

i have yet to see anythign by kazaleh that i dont like. i think the only things i dont have are those 2 self published comics?/portfolios?/zines? he did the all-male antics and all female frolics

and the assorted other comics hes worked on. i think he inked a few issues of (marvel?) cartoon cartoons, i only have about 4 issues of ren&stimpy from when i was a kid and watched the show all the time.

at any rate i think its a total myth that anyone would lose thier job for being a furry, or that they have anything to worry about other art that they do. a lot of the artists who illustrate childrens books also do thier own art (duh) and a good deal of the time that other art is not for children. (daupo.com, this guy does weird bizarre art, also illustrates) Bode would be another.

also lets not forget, most artists are fucked up at least in some small way anyhow
you usually do not want to get inside their heads
and this is almost universal whether its music or painting or whatever

this thread could become clogged up with examples, even leaving furry out of it entirely

Anonymous · Posted: 8/16/2003 9:18:57 PM Post subject:

just so you know scott, you're not bursting my bubble at all in fact i think you may be misinterpreting my posts
we're probably on the same brainwave, or close to it regarding this stuff

If so I apologize, I saw you make the differentiation between "funny animal" and "furry" and was simply pointing out that to Mike, at the time, there was no difference. Furry fandom was the only place where funny-animal stuff was even happening at the time, at least of an independent nature. No one else would publish or buy the stuff.

when i was stressing the term funny animals, i was mainly just refering to his cartoony style. as opposed to more anatomically and technically correct or "realistic" furry art

Well, that's kind of my point too. There IS no solid definition of "furry art", save that it involves animals with humanlike characteristics. I've seen plenty of furry art that is solidly cartoony. The trend in furfandom towards "realistic" art is mainly because that's where most of the "artistic respect" is. Since few furry artists make any kind of real money from their work, respect is the main driving force...which seems ironic, given furfandom's lousy reputation. Mutual ego-stroking is the main drive, and I can tell you it WORKS.

One artist, for example, whose art style I absolutely LOVE recently commented favorably on my own work and said she wished she could draw like me. Considering that my own talents are mediocre, and she herself clearly has a range of talent in terms of linework, character interaction, and composition that I can't remotely match at present, at first I thought she was being sarcastic. But it turned out she wasn't, and she kept gushing about this and that and how did I do thus and such.

I was totally blown away, and let me tell you, being complimented on your work by someone you feel is superior to you is ADDICTIVE.

and sort of pointing out that you usually DO NOT see adult material in that cartoon style.

Ah, I see. Yes, I'd have to agree --- at least where furries are concerned, realistic porn (or attempts at same) seem to be the norm. I would point out however, as a related tangent, that cartoon porn has been a regular staple of magazines like Hustler and Playboy for ages. It's actually kind of strange, thinking about it in that context, that furfandom doesn't produce more porn of the cartoonish variety.

the Suit: i wondered that it was some law that radio comix was covering thier ass for.

Not at all. That's an editorial decision. Radio was formed years ago by employees of Antarctic Press who wanted to publish more furry material (AP was itself becoming more and more derogatory towards furry stuff, except of course regarding "Gold Digger", one of their best sellers). Radio took off like a rocket because most furry comic fans transferred their allegiance right along with "Furrlough", which AP had already declared "effectively dead". AP's sales plummeted, to the point that they began re-introducing new furry titles in order to get the small-but-loyal furry comic readership back on board. For the record, "Furrlough" continues to sell at a profit, having produced well over 100 issues (which itself is extremely rare for any black and white comic).

anyway , the main point i was getting at with all of this is just that the level of professionalism is important. if something has a lot of quality its hard to criticize it. a lot of the "professionals" left, so furry lost tons of credibility when they did.

I'd disagree. First, furfandom never had a lot of credibility. The pros in the fandom, aside from the ones publishing comics, never made themselves particularly high-profile. Certainly, no one that I know of joined the fandom or went to a furry convention in hopes of meeting a Disney animator.

Second, there is plenty of professional-quality material in furry fandom. Some of it is downright scary --- the infamous Doug Winger, for example. His work is, from a technical standpoint, top-notch --- but look at what he DOES with that skill. Or, actually, don't...ick. But flipping through Yerf.com, for example, will turn up hundreds if not thousands of pics that wouldn't be amiss hanging on a wall somewhere, they're that good.

if you take the time to do something right, it kinda doesnt matter if its weird or not.

Well, there's "weird", and then there's "my God, I wish I hadn't seen that". As I've said before, the great gift and curse of furry fandom is that there's no central control --- and therefore what makes the rounds is purely a matter of what creators want to produce. So the incredibly nasty gets mixed in with the incredibly cute or the just-plain-neat stuff. The actual quality of work may very, but as Winger shows, a high-quality picture of a giant hermaphroditic horse ramming a 90-foot rod into the Empire State Building is STILL not something most people want to see.

i have yet to see anythign by kazaleh that i dont like. i think the only things i dont have are those 2 self published comics?/portfolios?/zines? he did the all-male antics and all female frolics

I passed on those, too. I like Mike, but...well, I've just never been a fan of genitalia. To be honest, the penis looks like a weird tentacle to me, and the vagina like a slash wound with hair. Sex is fun, but I don't wanna look at the parts involved. -:)

at any rate i think its a total myth that anyone would lose thier job for being a furry

It's happened. Some animators have in fact been canned. Others were called on the carpet and warned that their involvement in the fandom could reflect poorly on the animation house. Dave Kuhn, for example, used to do a LOT of sexy furry art for sketchbooks (as well as producing the famous and beloved furry t-shirt "OOOOOOOH! MY EYE!"). He was also the lead animator for the character of "Meeko" in "Pocahontas". After some sick porn of Meeko began making the rounds in furfandom, Dave was chewed out by his bosses at Disney who seemed to believe he was the origin for that material.

Dave's reaction was to go full-blown anti-furry, to the extent he began demanding that people return art he'd done for them years agone. Fans who left their sketchbooks lying around sometimes discovered all their Dave Kuhn art had been razored out by someone. In the end, Dave went around offering cash to people to let him razor his art out of their books.

After essentially excising his history of being in furfandom, Dave began making statements to the effect that he had never been a furry, and that the only art of his which was in the fandom was either "ripped off" or "sickly mutilated".

Hell, I have a t-shirt around here somewhere of his "Shur-Fry" skunk-girl --- "I'm happy 'cause I use Shur-Fry!". Which is a faux advertisement for a ray gun and just cute as anything.

a lot of the artists who illustrate childrens books also do thier own art (duh) and a good deal of the time that other art is not for children. (daupo.com, this guy does weird bizarre art, also illustrates) Bode would be another.

The publication houses for children's books are not routinely raked over the coals by various special-interest groups. Things are much more relaxed, and so long as nothing untoward makes it into the books, what the artists do in private is their business. The policies of animation and book publishing are widely divergent since the way they do business is widely divergent.

As for Bode, he always drew sexy art, and was always known for it as a member of the underground comix scene of the '70s. Ironically, despite the fact that furry fandom never really was a part of the underground scene, a number of Bode's prodigies and followers became part of furry fandom, such as Bill Fitts (and of course you know about Jerry Collins).

also lets not forget, most artists are fucked up at least in some small way anyhow you usually do not want to get inside their heads
and this is almost universal whether its music or painting or whatever

this thread could become clogged up with examples, even leaving furry out of it entirely

Very very true.

mouse · Posted: 8/16/2003 10:35:17 PM Post subject:

If so I apologize, I saw you make the differentiation between "funny animal" and "furry" and was simply pointing out that to Mike, at the time, there was no difference. Furry fandom was the only place where funny-animal stuff was even happening at the time, at least of an independent nature. No one else would publish or buy the stuff.

someone just recently pointed out that on A.F.F. that funny animals or cartoons animals, specifically the idea that it was ONLY for kids did not even emerge until sometime during the 70's

fritz, maus, disney WWII propaganda. good examples of this, im sure theres more
im sure in the 40's pretty much everyone loved mickey mouse, i know hitler did. i also remember reading somewhere that axis countries had banned all american media - with the exception of mickey mouse

(granted the WWII stuff and adults liking the cartoons has no relevance to the "porn" issue, but i figured id just point it out anyway)

Not at all. That's an editorial decision.

there was another recent thread of A.F.F. titled: "human - anthromorph sex = bestiality ?" which is why i even bothered to mention it

I'd disagree. First, furfandom never had a lot of credibility. The pros in the fandom, aside from the ones publishing comics, never made themselves particularly high-profile. Certainly, no one that I know of joined the fandom or went to a furry convention in hopes of meeting a Disney animator.

right, but it damn well COULD have (and i ll go further and say SHOULD HAVE)
and "meeting professionals and other with similar interests", is usually the only reason for fandoms (and in particular - APAs) to exist in the first place.

Second, there is plenty of professional-quality material in furry fandom. [.....>

ok your right on that, but i always go back to the point that: if the shit was drawn strictly to be weird, no one would care. in other words by getting offended or creeped out by it, well that was the point ....
since that dosnt reflect reality though... its too bad that high quality/ G-PG-PG-13-R stuff doesnt occupy the bulk of what is produced, or at least gets more attention than it currently does. i cant really see a good reason why some of the comics i read cant be enjoyed by more people , outside of a fandom. or why the comic fandom is hostile to these titles. this is one of those things i will hold against a majority of the people who slam on furry ceaselessly - is just the fact that since they spend thier time looking at shitty webcomics, hanging around furry mucks and message boards etc etc etc. the bottom line is if you go around looking for the bad stuff, you WILL find it. hell, i hate POE and look all the bad shit i found there (that took about 2 minutes) none of these people spend 1 second to even try and say anything good. they wont throw down a measly $3-$4 for a comic to see what its about, (like i did)

I passed on those, too. I like Mike, but...well, I've just never been a fan of genitalia. To be honest, the penis looks like a weird tentacle to me, and the vagina like a slash wound with hair. Sex is fun, but I don't wanna look at the parts involved. -:)

erm....uhmm....the only reason i dont have these is that apperently they are rare. i seen them go on furbid once but i didnt have enough $ to buy them (i think was $10-$20 each)
i actually will buy anything he prints at this point
ive said it before: for me, capt jack/zorch/line the dustbin/the suit:
comics that are the GOLD STANDARD by which i measure everything else

It's happened.

should have done something about it..

i wont let my boss walk all over me, ill tell em to fuck off (and have before)
your work should be able to speak for itself, if it cant then maybe you do have to put up with this kinda shit.

but i firmly believe instances like this, if people would stick up for themselves a little more , most of it could have been avoided
if not screw em if they dont appreciate you go somewhere else
or do something else for that matter

( dave kuhn: ) After essentially excising his history of being in furfandom

obviously, it didnt work
you are posting this info

i think ive made it clear several times here and on AFF that i just dont have a lot of respect for people who cant even own up to thier past or try to alter it. and this goes for anything. i really do hope they all fail

mouse · Posted: 8/17/2003 1:07:45 AM Post subject:

also re:

All the funny-animal comics being done at the time, with the strict exception of "Critters" (the aforementioned anthology, put out by the venerable Fantagraphics), were self-published. And "Critters" died with issue #50, a victim of piss-poor editorial control.

what?

unless you are counting small publishers as "self published" this really isnt true

what about space ark, and captain jack was around same time as critters. fantagraphics was always pushing "funny animals" in ads at the back of the comics
if you want to include major comic ppublishers you have
rocket raccoon - marvel
and captain carrot and the zoo crew - dc

and i dont see how critters was a victim of ANYTHING
please clarify
this was a great funny animal anthology series
and i would say getting to issue #50 is a huge accomplishment
the only reason that furrlough (which is WAY worse now, back issues liek 1-50 it was really good) is at issue 100+ is that radio comix has the target demographic LOCKED DOWN
furrlough will be around till issue 300 barring the economic collapse of radio comix or something

dont get me wrong i *like* furrlough, but i just recently picked up issues 121 to 125 and first off: the covers are awful (for a comic cover anyway, the artwork is fine by itself)
they started using that goofy "funhouse" font for the title, they dumped the military theme. which is fine i guess if they ran out of military-themed submissions, but the "stencil" font for furrlough was much better

Anonymous

A number also made it onto "Night Flight", a hit late-night show during the late '80s and early '90s. So before Amy the Squirrel ever saw the light of day, Mr. Schwartz had already had his work aired on national television.

I

don't

think

so.

No one saw as much Night Flight as *I* did (from "New Wave Theater" to "J-Men Forever" to "Dynaman", I watched it from beginning to end). There was NO ES toons on there.

After all, if there were, you would think that not only Eric would have been suing for some royalties, but he no doubt would have NEVER SHUT UP about his stuff being broadcast.

Michael Hirtes · Posted: 8/17/2003 10:50:27 AM Post subject:

As to Reed Waller, he has more call than anyone to say he's not a member of furry fandom. To my knowledge, he has never been involved in any furry fanzines, never published in any furry comics, and has had no involvement with any furry-related projects otherwise.

Having once been a zine publisher that recieved several of Reed's pieces for publication, I would have to refute that (not argue against it and scream "LIAR!" in your face at the top of my lungs, which is the typical furry response to most anything).

Anonymous · Posted: 8/19/2003 1:51:55 AM Post subject:

All the funny-animal comics being done at the time, with the strict exception of "Critters" (the aforementioned anthology, put out by the venerable Fantagraphics), were self-published. And "Critters" died with issue #50, a victim of piss-poor editorial control.

what?

unless you are counting small publishers as "self published" this really isnt true

I'm defining the term as "someone who publishes their own material".

what about space ark, and captain jack was around same time as critters.

Space Ark died with Apple. Captain Jack had trouble finding any kind of publisher once Fantagraphics bailed out of the "funny animal" business.

fantagraphics was always pushing "funny animals" in ads at the back of the comics

Yes, for a time. The end of "Critters" killed that. Fantagraphics took the position afterwards that funny-animal comics just DON'T sell...but the funny thing is that even as badly as they handled "Critters", it went to 50 issues, which was rare at the time for a black and white comic (and still is, mostly), especially an anthology.

if you want to include major comic ppublishers you have rocket raccoon - marvel and captain carrot and the zoo crew - dc

Except that neither publisher took the genre the least bit seriously, in business terms. Don't forget Marvel also did stuff like "Power Pachyderms" (which even furries despise) and of course "Howard the Duck"...and has always acted as though the concept, rather than the execution, was responsible for the failures of both. Captain Carrot developed its own horror story regarding DC's handling...Scott Shaw! could tell you about that better than I.

and i dont see how critters was a victim of ANYTHING please clarify

Anthology comics in general have both a blessing and a curse: they have a wide range of stories in every issue rather than just one. This causes weird market fluctuations: a "regular" of a given anthology will usually crack it open and check to see if there's anything in it he or she will like before they buy it.

Fantagraphics didn't like the fluctuations involved. They wanted stability and predictability --- understandably so. But their solution was to wildly change the content of "Critters" from issue to issue in an effort to find out what sold best.

This alienated a number of regular contributors, who would send in material and then not hear from FG for months, only finally to be rejected (often after they'd sent multiple monthly installments of yet more new, unpublished, material). This in turn led to a dearth of quality material to be published, and FG began giving starkly preferential treatment to those who would churn out stories without complaint, regardless of the quality or popularity.

By the late #30's, readers were deluging FG with complaints about content. One famous letter started with "Egnuff is Egnuff!", referring to the hordes of tales drawn by a gentleman from Europe who normally wrote Disney-type Duck stories (and merely exchanged the Ducks for Dragons). Gnuff was simply written and drawn with too juvenile of a style for most readers, but because it was churned out in reams FG kept printing it. By itself, this wouldn't have started things in the direction they went, but ANOTHER despised strip likewise kept making it into "Critters" --- "Duck 'Bill' Platypus", which was apparently supposed to be a sort of homage to Pogo. But it had none of the writing skill of Walt Kelly and administered its jokes with hammerblows, which turned off a lot more readers.

Between these two strips, Critters lost a lot of value to the average reader and sales began to plummet. FG ignored all complaints and Kim Thompson went so far as to state baldly that HE liked Gnuff and Duck 'Bill', and that's all he cared about.

FG's last attempt to bolster sales --- and the death knell of "Critters" --- came with the decision to kill off the anthology format and instead give each major feature its own full comic. Captain Jack got one, so did Lionheart, and of course...Gnuff.

Sales blew through the floor. An anthology builds its readership by appealing to a wide variety of tastes, and while fans of Lionheart and Cap'n Jack were suitably thrilled, those who weren't fans of those strips had no reason to buy those issues.

FG's final screwup was actually issue #50 --- which they figured, since sales were so poor, they'd just run a closing "tribute" issue and kill the title altogether. The original anthology format was brought back and just about anyone was allowed to contribute.

"Critters" Issue 50 was one of the best-selling issues FG ever produced for the series. Creators poured out of the woodwork to present their finest material, and each story was a real gem. Why was this a screwup? Because it proved that FG only needed to listen to its fan base, which was screaming for exactly this, to revive sales. Indeed, they could have chosen to launch a new title to replace "Critters", but Kim Thompson took the "Bitter Road" of blaming anthropomorphics itself for being a non-seller.

And that's the sorry tale.

the only reason that furrlough (which is WAY worse now, back issues liek 1-50 it was really good) is at issue 100+ is that radio comix has the target demographic LOCKED DOWN
furrlough will be around till issue 300 barring the economic collapse of radio comix or something

Well, actually Radio Comix got "Furrlough" because Antarctic Press insisted on killing it off. AP's original burst of success was in printing furry comics (they'd done manga knockoffs before that, which didn't sell very well), but when they began producing non-furry winners like "Warrior Nun", they decided that the low-margin furry books weren't worth their time.

But another interesting point is that "Furrlough" was actually originally intended as a successor to "Critters". Furry fandom has long had one, single, central and successful anthology, first "Critters" and then "Furrlough".

dont get me wrong i *like* furrlough, but i just recently picked up issues 121 to 125 and first off: the covers are awful (for a comic cover anyway, the artwork is fine by itself)
they started using that goofy "funhouse" font for the title, they dumped the military theme. which is fine i guess if they ran out of military-themed submissions, but the "stencil" font for furrlough was much better

All good points. I'd just note that Erin Winkler has long complained that she does not get enough submissions to be able to exercise any real editorial control. If it doesn't look like TOTAL crap, and it doesn't violate the rating, and she needs to fill space, in it goes. That's why the military theme was quietly dropped (or, rather, "expanded" to include "adventure").

Anonymous

A number also made it onto "Night Flight", a hit late-night show during the late '80s and early '90s. So before Amy the Squirrel ever saw the light of day, Mr. Schwartz had already had his work aired on national television.

I

don't

think

so.

No one saw as much Night Flight as *I* did (from "New Wave Theater" to "J-Men Forever" to "Dynaman", I watched it from beginning to end). There was NO ES toons on there.

Gee, then I must've been hallucinating when I saw "Badminton" played as bumper material one evening. A satellite wends its way across the screen slowly...and is suddenly hit by a tennis racket, bouncing off in the opposite direction.

The camera then cuts to a more remote view, and we see two shuttles with smiling faces smacking the satellite around with racket mounted in their cargo bays.

Did I watch Night Flight as much as you did? No. Did I see something you missed? Obviously.

After all, if there were, you would think that not only Eric would have been suing for some royalties, but he no doubt would have NEVER SHUT UP about his stuff being broadcast.

Assumption on your part. Frankly, Eric has never particularly trumpeted his creation of the Aerotoons. And he has more of them than he does of just about any other animation he's made. And yes, I DID see them being used as Amiga demo material in El Paso back in the late '80s.

As for royalties, as a self-proclaimed long-time Night Flight watcher, you should know that NF NEVER paid royalties. All deals were cash up front (and not a lot of it either), to keep the show cheap. I don't know what deal Eric got exactly --- and neither do you.

Anonymous · Posted: 8/19/2003 2:01:07 AM Post subject:

As to Reed Waller, he has more call than anyone to say he's not a member of furry fandom. To my knowledge, he has never been involved in any furry fanzines, never published in any furry comics, and has had no involvement with any furry-related projects otherwise.

Having once been a zine publisher that recieved several of Reed's pieces for publication, I would have to refute that (not argue against it and scream "LIAR!" in your face at the top of my lungs, which is the typical furry response to most anything).

Hence the part of my missive which reads "to my knowledge". I also note you don't mention if you actually did publish any of his material. If so, and I missed it, apologies on my part. In any event, what connections to the fandom he had were minimal and mainly a matter of the fact that "Rowrbrazzle" devolved from "Vootie", so many of his friends did in fact become involved in early furfandom.

Michael Hirtes · Posted: 8/19/2003 2:38:09 AM Post subject:

Hence the part of my missive which reads "to my knowledge". I also note you don't mention if you actually did publish any of his material. If so, and I missed it, apologies on my part.

NP. I know you said "to my knowledge".

And yes, I published each piece he sent me.

In any event, what connections to the fandom he had were minimal and mainly a matter of the fact that "Rowrbrazzle" devolved from "Vootie", so many of his friends did in fact become involved in early furfandom.

Well, read Jerry Collins' missives to get a good idea what it was like for old-school furry fandom, and compares it to today's cruel shadow of it.

Anonymous · Posted: 8/19/2003 2:54:41 AM Post subject:

[quote="Michael Hirtes>Well, read Jerry Collins' missives to get a good idea what it was like for old-school furry fandom, and compares it to today's cruel shadow of it.

I have, and they're both entertaining and informative.

Also, I know better than to take any one person's statements as gospel. I don't doubt much of what Jerry says, but that's only because I've kept my ears open for over a decade.

Me, I wouldn't call myself Old Guard, but I'm hardly New Meat either. Got into the fandom in the early '90s, before the Internet exploded and there were relatively few places you could get (or publish) furry art. I remember your own work with Furplay, in Mythagoras, and so on, for example. Somewhere around here I still have a copy of Scudder Kidwell's "Barr Wars" travesty, "Crusade". So I go rather a way back, and have gotten to know a lot of the major players rather personally.

All in all, I would judge myself to be "Second Wave" fandom.

mouse · Posted: 8/19/2003 2:57:43 AM Post subject:

I'm defining the term as "someone who publishes their own material".

the reason i asked is bcause your statement:
"All the funny-animal comics being done at the time, with the strict exception of "Critters" (the aforementioned anthology, put out by the venerable Fantagraphics), were self-published."

is just blatantly UNTRUE , for all the examples i gave before and now:

were talkign about the 80's correct?
gallacci's thoughts and images? mirage? eclipse? fantagraphics?
thoughts and images maybe can be considered "self publishing" but thats kind of a stretch. gallicci knew what he was doing...it was a "small press"

also, charlton comics had several funny animal titles throughout the 80's , all the teenage mutant ninja ripoffs from everyone imaginable eclipse mirage etc, also many UK publishers and the rampant speculation on all those , and also on "fish police"

...The end of "Critters" killed that. Fantagraphics took the position afterwards that funny-animal comics just DON'T sell...but the funny thing is that even as badly as they handled "Critters", it went to 50 issues, which was rare at the time for a black and white comic (and still is, mostly), especially an anthology.

they still (as in right now, go check thier catalog) deal with quite a few funny-animal graphic novels , or at least help distribute ...so this is not entirely true

what about post-critters funny animal series and one shots or mini series - AKQJ '91, fission chicken, usagi, more recently frank, and several others
(if any of those were NOT after critters please let me know)

it wasnt that bad, i dont see how you can come to this conclusion, black n white got its ass kicked, and it was a smaller more independant publisher...getting to #50 was a huge accomplishment. kim thompson seemed to promote funny animals more than anyone else, why would he run one of the most successful titles into the ground on purpose? im sure all readers DIDNT like Gnuff, so what? there was usually 3-4 other stories in each issue.

Fantagraphics didn't like the fluctuations involved. They wanted stability and predictability --- understandably so. But their solution was to wildly change the content of "Critters" from issue to issue in an effort to find out what sold best.

you're simultaneously arguing that it was always GNuff in every issue (later in your post) and wildly changing content...i just dont see it

and FG began giving starkly preferential treatment to those who would churn out stories without complaint, regardless of the quality or popularity.

freddie milton again huh? you can call him on the popularity maybe, but the quality was actually very good. he's also a good writer

By the late #30's, readers were deluging FG with complaints about content. One famous letter started with "Egnuff is Egnuff!", referring to the hordes of tales drawn by a gentleman from Europe who normally wrote Disney-type Duck stories (and merely exchanged the Ducks for Dragons). Gnuff was simply written and drawn with too juvenile of a style for most readers, but because it was churned out in reams FG kept printing it. By itself, this wouldn't have started things in the direction they went, but ANOTHER despised strip likewise kept making it into "Critters" --- "Duck 'Bill' Platypus", which was apparently supposed to be a sort of homage to Pogo. But it had none of the writing skill of Walt Kelly and administered its jokes with hammerblows, which turned off a lot more readers.

freddie milton's Gnuff...first off this "european guy" is known for actually going outside the slop that is usually in kids comics and making things fun for all ages, and this is especially true (from what i understand) of his woody woodpecker comics. so this is just your opinion. and im not aware that too many people share it...i liked gnuff...i also dont recall seeing THAT much of duck bill platypus..

since they were sending letters , they were obviously buying and continued to buy the comic @ that time. i dont the feelings were as strong as you make them out to be. ya theyd like to see 1 series dropped, doesnt mean that they dontl ike the others..

Between these two strips, Critters lost a lot of value to the average reader and sales began to plummet. FG ignored all complaints and Kim Thompson went so far as to state baldly that HE liked Gnuff and Duck 'Bill', and that's all he cared about.

i remember him saying he liked gnuff in one of the issues... i dont remember his saying that is all he cared about

FG's last attempt to bolster sales --- and the death knell of "Critters" --- came with the decision to kill off the anthology format and instead give each major feature its own full comic. Captain Jack got one, so did Lionheart, and of course...Gnuff.

the only point i would agree with you on is when , later on they would take 1 story and devote an entire issue to it...this sort of thing should usually be done for "special issues"

ALTHOUGH, critters #42 the *Not* the adventures of captain jack, was great...mainly just because to me it was another captain jack comic

"Critters" Issue 50 was one of the best-selling issues FG ever produced for the series. Creators poured out of the woodwork to present their finest material, and each story was a real gem. Why was this a screwup? Because it proved that FG only needed to listen to its fan base, which was screaming for exactly this, to revive sales. Indeed, they could have chosen to launch a new title to replace "Critters", but Kim Thompson took the "Bitter Road" of blaming anthropomorphics itself for being a non-seller.

well i dont really read too much outside anthropomorphics so i dont know what happened to kim thompson. id like some sources though

it seems more that it was the economy in that market, was the reason for enging it...yes i agree #50 was one of the best issues of all
so i do see osme editorial problems, but i felt all the issues were at least consistant quality even htough a few of them i didnt like certain stories , so what i wouldve been buying these things every month. i think most people who read anthologies expect this to happen once in a while too...

who does anthropomorphics now? mu press, SFA, rabco (1 erratically published title currently)

the only "mainstream" funny animals i think are usagi, moved to dark horse...cerebus (dont know who publishes it currently) various fantagraphics one shots, and other one-shots that fantagraphics distributes

(norwegian caroonist: JASON's import stuf Mjau Mjau, SSHHHH, Hey, Wait.., craig thompson's Goodbye Chunky Rice (topShelf Comix), just to name a few)

But another interesting point is that "Furrlough" was actually originally intended as a successor to "Critters". Furry fandom has long had one, single, central and successful anthology, first "Critters" and then "Furrlough".

who, from critters, was involved in furrlough...?

All good points. I'd just note that Erin Winkler has long complained that she does not get enough submissions to be able to exercise any real editorial control. If it doesn't look like TOTAL crap, and it doesn't violate the rating, and she needs to fill space, in it goes. That's why the military theme was quietly dropped (or, rather, "expanded" to include "adventure").

even back when furrlough was new though...it couldnt even come close to critters....Sam & Max freelance detectives...i remember seeing that on tv...then when i started collecting critters comics one day i ran across it in there, from years before

so obviously the talent was there.

you can just very clearly see the difference, they had a different feel to them. i try to get furrlough @ $1 on auctions and i hate paying any more for it.

BTW, space ark may become a cartoon soon...MAYBE:

[url>http://www.kultureshoq.com
click on gallery
then click on Mitchroney

he mentions that its a project right now

Anonymous · Posted: 8/19/2003 3:50:12 AM Post subject:

were talkign about the 80's correct?
gallacci's thoughts and images? mirage? eclipse? fantagraphics?
thoughts and images maybe can be considered "self publishing" but thats kind of a stretch.

The point of the definition was: where could a furry comic reasonably expect to be published by the late '80s? By the time I found furry comics at all --- late '88 --- most of them were dead and so were most of their publishers. I found dozens on dozens of furry comics, only two of which were continuing endeavors --- GraphXpress' "Red Shetland", and Aardvark-Vanaheim's "Cerebus". Every single other one was already deceased. That included "Albedo", which didn't see a new issue until Antarctic Press finally picked up the line in the mid-'90s.

Of course, TMNT was still a going concern, in a big way, which was kind of ironic considering it was the comic that really kicked off the Black-and-White Boom/Bust of the '80s in the first place.

All of which meant that, by the late '80s, unless you self-published there really was nowhere for a furry comic to get seen. Major pubbers wouldn't take 'em, and small pubbers were just trying to stay afloat in the Boom/Bust aftermath. NO ONE wanted to take aboard a new comic of any kind.

they still (as in right now, go check thier catalog) deal with quite a few funny-animal graphic novels , or at least help distribute ...so this is not entirely true

If you check, you'll find Fantagraphics handled very little funny-animal work of any kind during the '90s. The little which they did handle was considered sufficiently avant-garde to "offset" the animals. Crack open a copy of FG's "Comics Journal" from the '90s --- I have plenty of 'em --- and you'll find a consistent tendency to bash anthro material and especially furry comics.

An example would be the review done on Martin Wagner's "Hepcats", wherein the critic opined that animal characters were inherently incapable of expressing a wide enough range of human emotion to fully exploit Wagner's storyline.

I wrote in pointing out that Comics Journal had very recently given kudos to Carl Barks and Don Rosa for their work in bringing the full range of expression to a species with a bill and feathers for a face, and that when it came to other funny-animal work that had unremittingly succeeded --- like Maus and Pogo --- the CJ was unrelenting in its praise. Ergo, I noted, it seemed that animal characters could indeed exploit these kinds of storylines...but since Wagner hadn't hit it big yet, he was fair game.

it wasnt that bad, i dont see how you can come to this conclusion, black n white got its ass kicked, and it was a smaller more independant publisher...getting to #50 was a huge accomplishment.

I absolutely agreed.

kim thompson seemed to promote funny animals more than anyone else, why would he run one of the most successful titles into the ground on purpose?

"On purpose" and "out of pure ignorance" are two different things. Thompson simply didn't listen to the people he was selling to, and openly chose to put his personal favorites in "Critters" even when people were dropping the comic in droves because of it.

im sure all readers DIDNT like Gnuff, so what? there was usually 3-4 other stories in each issue.

There certainly were. As I said, Gnuff by itself didn't kill the comic. But when one-third to one-half your comic is eaten up by material that maybe only one-tenth of your readership wants to see, that's not good.

you're simultaneously arguing that it was always GNuff in every issue (later in your post) and wildly changing content...i just dont see it

No, Gnuff was not in every issue. Just a godawful lot of them. And you're mixing the phases I was referring to --- first came the wildly changing content, which drove away a lot of creators who got rapidly tired of being fooled with. THEN Gnuff wound up being a common feature, simply because the author was one of the few who stuck around.

freddie milton again huh? you can call him on the popularity maybe, but the quality was actually very good. he's also a good writer

I won't argue that, because it's mostly "eye-of-the-beholder" there. I won't quip about his art quality in any event. Point being that a comic lives or dies by its sales, and if an editor insists on running unpopular material, the comic will suffer.

freddie milton's Gnuff...first off this "european guy" is known for actually going outside the slop that is usually in kids comics and making things fun for all ages, and this is especially true (from what i understand) of his woody woodpecker comics. so this is just your opinion.

I'm citing the barrage of letters which kept appearing in "Critters". It's not just my opinion. And BTW, I love a lot of Freddie Milton's stuff (I hadn't recalled his name until you mentioned it). I called him a "European guy" because what he was known for was doing Duck stories for Disney's European market.

Gnuff was simply not liked. A lot of people complained that it was "Disney ripoff" material, despite the fact that Milton drew and wrote all his stuff originally. The appearance and tone of the stories simply did not impress the average "Critters" reader, and that's according to the letters and sales. The all-Gnuff issue was the worst seller of the entire "Critters" line, for example.

It wasn't a BAD story. It just wasn't popular.

since they were sending letters , they were obviously buying and continued to buy the comic @ that time.

That's in no way a given. It simply means they jotted off a letter to FG making their preferences known. And I don't recall the "same few guys" writing the letters over time. For all we know, they wrote the letters and dumped the comic. Or not. What we do know is that Gnuff was generating protest, and a lot of it.

i remember him saying he liked gnuff in one of the issues... i dont remember his saying that is all he cared about

In terms of whether or not to publish Gnuff and Duck 'Bill'. I'm not suggesting they were the only two strips he liked.

it seems more that it was the economy in that market, was the reason for enging it...

Well, FG officially blamed funny-animal comics as being "unsellable" for the failure of "Critters". They never said the market economy was the main problem.

yes i agree #50 was one of the best issues of all
so i do see osme editorial problems, but i felt all the issues were at least consistant quality even htough a few of them i didnt like certain stories , so what i wouldve been buying these things every month. i think most people who read anthologies expect this to happen once in a while too...

Of course, and that's what one should expect when publishing an anthology. The problem was that FG didn't actually have a lot of experience with anthologies and didn't really understand why their sales would go up one month and down the next (while still maintaining a general average sales level overall).

who does anthropomorphics now? mu press, SFA, rabco (1 erratically published title currently)

I haven't seen anything from MU in an age...in fact, I thought they'd closed shop years ago.

the only "mainstream" funny animals i think are usagi, moved to dark horse...cerebus (dont know who publishes it currently)

Cerebus is still done by the same company...Aardvark-Vanaheim.

who, from critters, was involved in furrlough...?

Off the top of my head, I couldn't tell ya. The success of Critters was the impetus for Antarctic doing a furry anthology, though. And AP had done other anthologies in the past (Mangaphile, for example), so had a good idea of how to manage one.

even back when furrlough was new though...it couldnt even come close to critters....Sam & Max freelance detectives...i remember seeing that on tv...then when i started collecting critters comics one day i ran across it in there, from years before

Granted. Of course, AP didn't pay squat either and was too small of a company to attract much notice. Fantagraphics has long been considered a "giant" among independents, so was much better at attracting "names".

Most of Furrlough's early talent actually came from the furry fanzine crowd.

BTW, space ark may become a cartoon soon...MAYBE:

[url>http://www.kultureshoq.com
click on gallery
then click on Mitchroney

Whoo! GO KEN GO! -:D

mouse · Posted: 8/19/2003 5:20:17 AM Post subject:

That's in no way a given. It simply means they jotted off a letter to FG making their preferences known. And I don't recall the "same few guys" writing the letters over time. For all we know, they wrote the letters and dumped the comic. Or not. What we do know is that Gnuff was generating protest, and a lot of it.

ok im only like 15 issues shy of having all 50, im actually going to look into this

I haven't seen anything from MU in an age...in fact, I thought they'd closed shop years ago.

??? they are still around, they are coming out with new stuff every month.. ive posted a link to them several times in these forums, edd's still selling all the old stuff, matt howarth, kazaleh, you can still buy all the issues of fangs of ka'ath, little paw

i actually think not to many people are aware that mu is back or has been since early '02 i think. i forget how i found it myself...thier forum is basically empty. im not sure if they get much traffic either

at any rate stuff comign out right now would be
jim & picca, (coming soon)
Milton Knight's Hugo #3
wild kingdom i think

[url>http://mupress.com
[url>http://www.mupress.com

its actually mu press/aeon now...not sure what the difference is..

Off the top of my head, I couldn't tell ya. The success of Critters was the impetus for Antarctic doing a furry anthology, though. And AP had done other anthologies in the past (Mangaphile, for example), so had a good idea of how to manage one.

ok but, i was under the impression that AP was started by Ben Dunn, who some of his earliest comics were things like mighty tiny & mouse marines

i know his main thing is manga but hes also been linked with furry, so when AP dumped furry, it must have been strictly for financial reasons...last i heard, Ben Dunn was starting another company: sentai studios, and looking for "giant robot" and "furry" style artists

so thatll be 3 companies where the people working at each all know(or at least worked with) each other..AP , radio, and sentai studios

correct me if i am wrong, elin winkler and pat duke came from AP, ben dunn stayed behind, now ben dunn is leaving AP and starting a new company....is he actually leaving AP or just starting this 2nd company?
and also Ben Dunn originally start AP didnt he?

Whoo! GO KEN GO! -:D

you see his page shows last updated 4/2001
i mean hes doing a bunch of stuff, and im assuming these things take time so who knows if and when, but that will actually be really cool to see that as a show

i just hope it isnt as pun based as the comics became...that stuff is funny, but if you read issue #5 , its almost like they wrote a pun and then wrote a story leading up to it

basically i just wouldnt want it to be another "beetleguise" (sp?)...god that would suck. that show was just one giant visual pun after another, im gettign annoyed just thinking about it, even though it was so long ago....