Talk:Dabel Brothers Productions

Devil's Due
Someone with some knowledge on the topic should really include a section on their dealings with Devil's Due Publishing, and the trainwreck that made of the Legend of Huma series (which was never adequately completed, and featured a 6th issue, released over a year later, through a different studio). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.197.130.137 (talk • contribs) 18:16, 24 May 2006

Name Change
Clearly, based on the logo from their website, this article should be titled "Dabel Brothers Productions"

I propose that we change the name of the article. Any objections? --Measure 23:14, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Massive Update
Considering the amount of 'hype' in the article, primarily created by their PR man Sean J Jordan, updated the article throughout concerning the public breaks the studio has had with publishers, the smear campaigns they've engaged in, and the fact that currently, they are not doing anything and offering no explanations as to why yet again, they are unable to get books out.

MASSIVE MISTAKE
Your "massive" update did nothing but add in all of the rehtoric and slander that was spilled on message boards. This is not a place to air your dirty laundry, sir.

All you added was hearsay and negativity to an entry that was a striaght forward account of historical events and timelines... This is not a tabloid, it is an encyclopedia.

Censorship / Revisionism
Let's talk about what Wikipedia is for, whoever you are...

-This article was created and drafted by Sean Jordan, DBPro's PR guy, qualifies it as a vanity article to begin with, so really, the discussion should just end there.

-Your response sounds like personal investment as well. Certainly not maintaining a neutral stance.

The fact is so far everything I check in the previous edits can be backed up with active links to comics news sites and comments made by DBPro staff in some of those forums.

Calling something monthly, when it wasn't, or removing comments that a specific issue was never released, when it wasn't is not removing 'mistakes' but polishing the image.

Seeing as this was created by their PR person, and obviously being monitored by their own staff, this isn't an encyclopedia entry at all, but hype.

If you can back stuff up, how about listing the release dates on those books you 'claim' were released, since you removed that? How about linking as resources the articles where DBPro breaks from publisher after publisher.

Followup: I went in and re-posted the stuff from the previous edit that I could find and back up with online comics press and media. Couple things were either merely hearsay, or coming from a single person and thus I left those out. Anything I could find links to as Press Releases, or acknowledged by the Dabels in a public form, I put back in, and included copies of the links at the bottom.

Removing this stuff now, with evidence backing it up, would be pretty clear cut of censorship.--ComicsGuy 20:58, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Corrections.
1.) Marvel did not purchase or aquire DBPro. It is a mutual partnership. "Marvel Comics announced that they will partner with Dabel Brothers Productions..."

2.) Both issues of 7th Shrine were released by Image Comics.

3.) The break between Alias and DBPro was surely played out on message boards, when in fact DBPro was never exclusively tied to Alias. This relationship is much like the realation ship Image has with studios, in that studios can bring titles to any publisher they like. So saying that they broke contract is foolish, being that there is no exclusive contract. The issue at hand is XIII, and that book being late, and then being pulled away before being finished or going to Trade paperback.

This Alias section needs to be updated, because as it stands it is overly one-sided in Alias' favor. It also fails to mention the fact that before DBPro and Alias had there mud slinging, that 2 weeks prior the Alias flagship title of Lions, Tigers, and Bears - withdrew in a more public affair than the DBPro affair, and that the same reasons were mentioned. That Alais was not organized and that they were at fault for breaching that contract.

4.) It is now VERY aparent that DBPro halted production during the Marvel negotiations. And that they were unable to expalin the delays to the public or fans.

5.) All of the new release dates for books have been announced, they have been updated.

I agree, that history is history. But by making personal this article, we are making it a tabloid issue and not a historical fact sheet. There are always going to be biased side, but it's fairly obvious that not all litigations are against DBPro, and that not all are fro DBPro.

Other Corrections
I did go in and changed a few things. Some were spelling errors or words in the old draft unintentionally left in, but...

1.) If we're only going with things substantiated, according to all the PR, the Dabels were in charge of producing the book, Red Eagle was only financing. The Dabels claim they stopped work because they were not paid, and always said they were on schedule or ahead of schedule, so, I did not find anything that substantiated Miller was late, let go by Red Eagle, then partnered with them after.

2.) There was no substantiation of marketing problems within the publisher, only allegations. Devil's Due claimed merely the books were not being delivered.

3.) If New Spring as a comic is in court arbitration, Red Eagle may indeed have some claim on the property based on the contract with the Dabels. Since the contract is not public its inappropriate to assume that because the Dabels claim to own it they do, they may have...but most companies throwing investment into a project also want their claim on the material. This is supported by the court arbitration which is no doubt to determine the legality of it.

4.) Also changed the comment about Red Eagle and comics on Jordan's stuff. DBPro only owns the license to New Spring. Red Eagle owns the license on the rest of the main Wheel of Time books, which is tied to their overall licensing deal and the movie rights.

--ComicsGuy 02:46, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

It does seem that you, without any knowledge of the abitration between Red Eagle and DBPro are assuming a LOT of things. One you are assuming the Red Eagle is suing DBPro, when in fact it is the other way around. DBPro is suing Red eagle for lack of payment. Red Eagle was responsible for paying for production which the did not do after issue 5 became very late, due to Miller's lack of turning in pages on time. (Search through message boards and you will see Miller's excuse for this being he was moving to a new home in San Diego and only turned in half the book over a 60 day period - this is what lead to his removal.)

You edits on Red Eagle are very one sided... As well as your edits on Devil's Due. You again do not know what the actual dispute was, you are using opinion pieces and message board to substantiate your claims.


 * My whole point is I'm not claiming, but stating what has been 'claimed' and referring to it as such. If there is bias, it may be because the pattern has been consistent with every publisher. The edits I made were altering things that seemed to be being stated as fact when they too were 'claims'. The article started incredibly one sided the other way. I admit my first edits were leaning the other direction when I saw that everything had been stripped out. As for the Red Eagle deal, I did some searching, I found merely claims from DBPro that they were not being paid and from Red Eagle that the book was canceled due to ongoing scheduling problems. I never stated who took who to court, but if the series has been put on hold, pending arbitration through court proceedings, that makes no sense if the only contested point is money owed. Usually, under a legal proceeding is a property is put on hold its because of a dispute on issues of rights, ownership, etc. Both parties have stated the book is on hold pending this proceeding, ergo...--ComicsGuy 23:03, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

But in all honesty, now - Devils Due and Red Eagle are blips in the past here. THe more important facts are what these guys can do with the biggest partnership they have ever had. If they suceed now - all else in the past matters naught.

Half Dead
This book is done and is scheduled for March o 2007.

Fair use rationale for Image:Dabel Bros.gif
Image:Dabel Bros.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 07:09, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Should be rewritten
This article should be completely removed and rewritten from the ground up by someone not in any way affiliated with the company. It's riddled with weasel words and reads more like a company press release than an article in an encyclopedia. To be honest there's no way a small comics publlisher like this would have an article of this size without the involvement of some PR staff. Stop touting your own horn, there are many places for you to advertise your company, this is not one of them. You're ruining part of this great project based on collboration, trust, and a shared vision. If those ideals do not suit, feel free to get out.

Before you put your hands on this article, you should have aread some of this stuff:

Self-promotion. It can be tempting to write about yourself or projects you have a strong personal involvement in. However, do remember that the standards for encyclopedic articles apply to such pages just like any other, including the requirement to maintain a neutral point of view, which is difficult when writing about yourself. Creating overly abundant links and references to autobiographical articles is unacceptable. See Autobiography, Notability and Conflict of interest.

COI editing involves contributing to Wikipedia in order to promote your own interests or those of other individuals, companies, or groups. Where an editor must forgo advancing the aims of Wikipedia in order to advance outside interests, that editor stands in a conflict of interest.

PLease have a good read then get the F out. Thanks. Flexxx (talk) 16:55, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Rights to Wheel of Time
I believe that DB now owns the rights to a Wheel of Time series, and not Red Eagle, correct? LordArros (talk) 22:33, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeh your right, the information has now changed to state that the Dabel Brothers have kept the rights to the Wheel of Time series. Salavat (talk) 06:06, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Dabel Brothers Ripping Off Customers
Could someone PLEASE add some very new information about this company basically scamming customers? The 2010 and 2011 A Song of Ice and Fire calendars are being cancelled (and DB's contract canceled) due to many, many issues with this company. I think this needs to get out to the general public. Here are links for backup:

From George R. R. Martin himself (http://grrm.livejournal.com/):

Calendar Cancelled

* Apr. 19th, 2009 at 1:55 PM

ireland I regret to announce that Michael Kaluta will not be illustrating the 2010 Ice & Fire calendar for DB Productions. I've seen some of the work Mike had done on the calendar to date, and it was gorgeous... but he's pulled out, and his reasons for doing so are good and sufficient. I am in complete support of his decision to wash his hands of this, and regret all the problems that his involvement in this project has caused him.

I have reached the end of my patience as well. I have instructed my agent to ask the Dabel Brothers for an immediate termination of our contract.

Unless another publisher suddenly hoves into sight, the problem-plagued 2009 Ice & Fire calendar may be the only one there ever is.

From Westeros.org:

http://asoiaf.westeros.org/index.php?showtopic=33107

From the Dabel Brothers forum:

http://www.dabelbrothers.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=17&t=115&p=831#p831 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.23.89.115 (talk) 05:49, 21 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Some kind of coverage about the Dabel 'controversy', including the calendars and other issues, may be appropriate given the level of notoriety (fairly or unfairly) the company has gained in the industry. However, I suspect such coverage would require stringent sourcing and would involve a lot of arguments and clashes on this talk page. Tobias Buckell's blog entry about his dealings with the Dabel Brothers may be of interest in this regard, but remember that forums - where most of the disputes have unfolded - are generally not considered to be valid Wikipedia sources.--Werthead (talk) 18:31, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

The new WoT comic book series
Dabel Brothers are producing the new WoT comic series (issue 1 of THE EYE OF THE WORLD is planned to come out this month I believe) with zero involvement from Red Eagle. As a result, I removed the unsourced claim that Red Eagle are behind the new EotW comics adaption as they are not. Dabel Brothers have the only rights to make WoT comics at this time. In addition, the rights dispute over NEW SPRING appears to have ended, with Tor officially announcing here that they will be releasing the graphic novel adaption in one volume in November 2009.--Werthead (talk) 18:31, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

removing POV tag with no active discussion per Template:POV
I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:
 * This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:
 * There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
 * It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
 * In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.

If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 02:33, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Dabel Brothers Productions. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090220181332/http://www.dabelbrothers.com:80/index.php?categoryid=16 to http://www.dabelbrothers.com/index.php?categoryid=16&p2_articleid=40

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 19:00, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Dabel Brothers Productions. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080122014155/http://www.dabelbrothers.com/index.php?categoryid=1&p2_articleid=143&s=cc6656e54931652ea7bbda5b5f559751 to http://www.dabelbrothers.com/index.php?categoryid=1&p2_articleid=143&s=cc6656e54931652ea7bbda5b5f559751

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 04:21, 3 September 2017 (UTC)