I don’t like the artwork of Paul Murry (an artist associated with primarily the Mickey Mouse comic books). For me, it’s one of the nadirs of Disney comic books in general (along with Tony Strobl). His work just screams the inability to capture appeal, structure, or even a facial expression. The second I’d see his mushy style in one of the old Dells or Gladstones, I would always skip past it. That’s why it pains me to find out that the guy who usually drew things like this:
Was actually capable of things like this:
Sad, ain’t it?
Given a subject he really wanted… er, to draw, that is!—it’s amazing how much more memorable Murry’s art became. I recollect his stating in an interview that he thought of Mickey as a “dead” character after—the 1950s, I think? Imagine spending twenty years dutifully going on with something you’re tired of…
I like Murry’s ’40s and early ’50s comic art tremendously, but a few hot girls could have improved things. Pity Dell comics were “good” comics.
You’re learning about life, Thad. I’ve worked with some tremendously creative people over the years. But management wants less than that. So that’s what they get.
Then why were Carl Barks, John Stanley, Walt Kelly, etc. allowed to be brilliant by the same publisher???
Obviously, Murry’s real love was elsewhere and he was only doing the Mickey comics for the paycheck. Barks and Kelly, on the other hand, brought their own personal enthusiasm to the table, and it shows in their work. This was good luck for the Comics publisher, and a special treat for the comics readers, but I’ll bet that the reality was that the publishers wwere not as concerned with the finished product as much as they were with recieving the work on time. Such is the reality of commerce.
Look at Looney Tunes while Eddie Seltzer was producer: Jones, Freling, and McKimson put out cartoons that were superior to the competition, but this was due to their own personal drive to make their work stand out and had very little to do with any directives from management.
ad hoc critics of fandom!!!… need to find a better criteria for criticism than an impressionistic journalism…
… john k. slamming w. kelly’s lack of solid construction and scouring the web for examples of kelly’s softest construction and crummiest output to bolster his arguments, when you can find as many counterexamples.
It seems even when the formal parameters of cartoon excellence are accepted as concrete, I’m dubious of the flat pronouncements. By the prejudice of your own authority, Thaddeus.
(Incidentally, there’s nothing special about those chessecake gag cartoons.)
Knacht, what the fuck are you yammering on about. Murry was a really crummy cartoonist, and I came to that conclusion after reading hundreds of pages of his work. This goes back to his work from the ’40s, which I think is almost as bad. I thought the cheesecake cartoons looked nice unlike his mushy Disney comics. Find some good shit to bolster YOUR argument. BTW, Kelly on even his worst day could beat Murry on his best.
Lo Thaddeus, wasn’t defending Murry… Though I like the scruffy character in the Mickey pages over and above those generic cheesecakes. So it seems there’s little about murry worth your estimations? Why then this post!? To sock it to some dead hack? I’m sure you’re very rigorous in your researches before you make flat aesthetic pronouncements… doesn’t mean they fly.
Also, I was defending Kelly from John K’s criticisms (read closely). I was noting that one can find a success for every failure when one looks to find examples to bolster their formal criticisms. I love Kelly.
Anyway, by the prejudice of your own authority, Thaddeus.
I like Murry’s Mickey Mouse comics a lot. But yes, his cheesecake work is much more 3D and alive. I think it should be a law that hot babes be included in all funny animal comics.
Paul Murry was the greatest Mickey Mouse artist and one of the greatest Disney artist of them all. Only Carl Barks was better.