WHAT'S GOOD AND BAD ABOUT THE NEW DANDY?

Copyright D.C. THOMSON & Co., Ltd

Here's what's right with it - full-colour, good paper (though it tends to smudge), some well-drawn strips, and smatterings of irreverent humour in the small print on the inside back page.

Here's what's wrong with it - in some places, amateur lettering, clumsy placement of word balloons, roughly-rendered logos which are too similar (no individual identity), and some inadequately drawn sequential art, which could be vastly improved.

Take BANANAMAN - never liked the character and didn't care much for the old version of the strip, although it  was drawn in a highly competent and professional manner.  So, I therefore don't have a problem with the new art style and direction for the hero.  (No doubt many fans of the original might disagree.)

However, it could stand some improvement in the following areas.  Upper case lettering in the word balloons, slightly bolder exterior lines on the characters to make them stand out - and more space in the frames to accommodate the lettering so that the art isn't obscured by it.  Same goes for PEPPERONI PIG.

Also, just why does it feel that I'm looking at too many of the strips through the wrong end of a telescope?  Everything seems to be in long-shot - even the close-ups.  (No complaints about HARRY HILL whatsoever.)  Had I been the editor, I'd have made sure problems like these had been resolved before the strips had gone to press.

Another thing - some defenders of the new DANDY claim that it's aimed at kids, but if that's the case, why does some of the art look like it belongs more in PUNCH or PRIVATE EYE?  Not that that's necessarily a bad thing, but they seem to want to have their cake and eat it too.

Hopefully these problems will be fixed sooner rather than later.  Feel free to agree or disagree - or even ignore - I don't care.