Ole (RoC) wrote:
> Specifically requesting Gottfredson compatibility is a funny attitude,
> when they have been literally ignoring him for the last 20 years! That's
> Ignoring with a capital I! Except for a 40$ hardcover book and a couple
> of Pluto sundays *nothing* has been reprinted here! "Kids" like me have
> been brain-washed with countless reruns of "classics" into accepting
> that Paul Murry is the Grand Old Mouse.
Maybe it's the influence of Byron Erickson and Bob Foster?
BTW: does anyone know what Foster _is_ doing at Egmont?
It's unbelievable there weren't more Gottfredson reprints in Denmark!
In Holland, France and (not to forget) Italy, there are even special
series with the oldest Gottfredson stories. I would expect that they
were reprinted all over Europe...
> CARL BARKS & CO.
> Don asked if others had the new CB&Co. You and everybody who didn't
> catch the Anders' Ant joke in the latest WDC are welcome to ask specific
> questions about it, or, if you all beg on your knees, I just *might*
> translate some of the articles :)
OK, here it comes: (ahem) Ole, would you? Pleeeeeease?
> NONNA PAPERA [about Grandma]
> [...] only news to me was that her car is a 1920'es Detroit Electric.
Which brings me to the next question: who invented Grandma's car? Was it in
the Taliaferro strips as well?
> FAMOUS LAST WORDS
> Badalamenti is an artist who will not appear in any of our lists. He's a
> composer. The only thing that bothers me about this net thing is that you
> can't write in italics. So I let off steam by ending with an italicism.
> Like this:
>
> Morricone.
OK, I'll follow you, using the name of another famous Italian:
Gadducci.
--Harry.
Author
Topic: 199312
(129 messages)
Harry Fluks
From RoC
Message 91 -
1993-12-21 at 21:16:00
Per Starback
Christmas Carol etc.
Message 92 -
1993-12-21 at 22:54:05
Darin> IMHO, [Disney] can't stop making movies and shows
Darin> because of our sense of "classic duckness". If companies did this then
Darin> the entire comic industry would collapse.
Harry> The point is, that $crooge was _created_ in the world of
Harry> "classic duckness". He was never meant to be a movie or TV
Harry> character.
And Donald was "never" meant to be a comic book character either. The
point is that... hmm... what's the point? Why knock it just because
it's not what it is not? It's possible to appreciate Tale Spin comics
even though they aren't the same as the more original Tale Spin TV
series. And it's possible to appreciate that TV series even though it
uses characters from the movie _The Jungle Book_ in a different way.
And it's possible to appreciate that movie even though it's a massacre
of Kipling's books ...
I don't mean that you necessarily have to appreciate everything, but
that it is different from something else is not enough reason to deem
it bad, even if that something else is really good.
Darin> What I'm trying to say is. Hey, we like the classic Barks
Darin> ducks, and especially $crooge, but you just can't realistically
Darin> expect Disney to use him in that one way.
Harry> We could expect they would use him in a consistent way... The
Harry> DuckTales $crooge is a totally different character, only
Harry> resembling the comic $crooge a little bit.
The comic book Scrooge is not a consistent character either, not even
in Carl Barks's own stories. And why would he have to be? Sometimes
he's an eccentric old man, unknown to the world at large, who collects
coins and bills because of their nostalgic importance to him and whose
enjoyment of the money comes out of bathing in the money. And sometimes
he's a full-blown capitalist making Big Business all over the world.
It doesn't have to be very consistent to be good reading. In fact
consistency would have gotten in the way of telling many good stories.
And craving consistency can get in the way of appreciating many good
stories.
That doesn't mean that it can't be a fun intellectual endeavour to try
to piece it all together, and that has been done in Donaldism for many
years now (just like I think it's done among e.g., Sherlock Holmes
fans). But I think it unwise to let those cleverly thought-out
descriptions of how past stories were constitute limits for what can
or should be done in new stories. Let a thousand flowers bloom!
Well, Merry and Happy Whatever to all of you!
-- "
Per Starback, Uppsala, Sweden. email: starback at minsk.docs.uu.se
"Life is but a gamble! Let flipism chart your ramble!"
Darin> because of our sense of "classic duckness". If companies did this then
Darin> the entire comic industry would collapse.
Harry> The point is, that $crooge was _created_ in the world of
Harry> "classic duckness". He was never meant to be a movie or TV
Harry> character.
And Donald was "never" meant to be a comic book character either. The
point is that... hmm... what's the point? Why knock it just because
it's not what it is not? It's possible to appreciate Tale Spin comics
even though they aren't the same as the more original Tale Spin TV
series. And it's possible to appreciate that TV series even though it
uses characters from the movie _The Jungle Book_ in a different way.
And it's possible to appreciate that movie even though it's a massacre
of Kipling's books ...
I don't mean that you necessarily have to appreciate everything, but
that it is different from something else is not enough reason to deem
it bad, even if that something else is really good.
Darin> What I'm trying to say is. Hey, we like the classic Barks
Darin> ducks, and especially $crooge, but you just can't realistically
Darin> expect Disney to use him in that one way.
Harry> We could expect they would use him in a consistent way... The
Harry> DuckTales $crooge is a totally different character, only
Harry> resembling the comic $crooge a little bit.
The comic book Scrooge is not a consistent character either, not even
in Carl Barks's own stories. And why would he have to be? Sometimes
he's an eccentric old man, unknown to the world at large, who collects
coins and bills because of their nostalgic importance to him and whose
enjoyment of the money comes out of bathing in the money. And sometimes
he's a full-blown capitalist making Big Business all over the world.
It doesn't have to be very consistent to be good reading. In fact
consistency would have gotten in the way of telling many good stories.
And craving consistency can get in the way of appreciating many good
stories.
That doesn't mean that it can't be a fun intellectual endeavour to try
to piece it all together, and that has been done in Donaldism for many
years now (just like I think it's done among e.g., Sherlock Holmes
fans). But I think it unwise to let those cleverly thought-out
descriptions of how past stories were constitute limits for what can
or should be done in new stories. Let a thousand flowers bloom!
Well, Merry and Happy Whatever to all of you!
-- "
Per Starback, Uppsala, Sweden. email: starback at minsk.docs.uu.se
"Life is but a gamble! Let flipism chart your ramble!"
Don Rosa
+Postage Due+Disney-comics digest #191.
Message 93 -
1993-12-22 at 07:00:43
ROC:
A long message, but I can only offer a few cogent comments. In
the American newspaper strips, an "Aunt Fanny" sent a letter to Donald
introducing "cousin Gus". That's the way I depict the set-up in my Duck
Family Tree.
I've grown up knowing that Grandma drove an old Studebaker
Electric. But who "invented" it? I never considered that. Was it in the
newspapers first or in Barks' comics?
HARRY:
Why is Egmont reviving the Gottfredson Mouse? I am certain it is
Byron's work! He is a huge fan of the FG Mouse. And what does Bob Foster
do? He is in (partial?) charge of commissioning stories for use in the
DIGESTS, as Byron is in charge of the comic books.
TRYG:
Where is Duckburg and-slash-or Calisota? We've discussed this
before you popped in. I don't mind the idea of this being one of those
things left to the imagination, especially since, as the name implies,
it seems to be a state which, for story purposes, has California climate
part of the time and Minnesota climate at other times. As I began each
chapter of the Lo$ with a map of that chapter's action, I was compelled
to show EXACTLY where Calisota and Duckburg are, but only if someone
goes to the extra trouble of comparing my map with an actual map of the
coastline of the western USA. That'll be in chapter 10 which you'll see
in nearly TWO YEARS but which will be used in Europe any day now.
And this matter of who is the $crooge in DUCKTALES and MICKEY'S
XMAS CAROL. I mostly agree with Harry and Tryg. I also enjoy DUCKTALES
and I enjoy MCC, sorta. The fact that I know that's not the "real"
$crooge doesn't preclude my enjoyment. However, Disney's use of the
classic characters (whom they abandonned into the realm of merchandising
in 1940 for MM and 1954 with DD) as simply ACTORS filling out roles only
shows that they've lost all direction or understanding of who those
characters originally were in even Disney's shallow original uses, and
have given up on them as anything but visual shapes of ink lines.
Obviously, the only "REAL" $crooge can be the Dell comic book version,
in its *slight* variations -- not as an actor. And anytime I refer to
the "real" DD, I make sure I say the real COMIC BOOK DD, which is the
only one I think is especially worthy of particular interest as I see no
reason to be especially infatuated with a merchandising ink-line
configuration. I believe in characters, not shapes. Substance over form.
When Disney deals with these characters (which they own through a mere
legal loophole), they deal with simple form; when the comic books use
them, they deal with SUBSTANCE. Even though I'm an American, I still
profess a preference to the LATTER as unpatriotic as it may be these
days. I hope that we on the Disney Comics Forum are more interested in
substance than form. The people on those Disney BBSs who argue about how
cute Ariel is or how many times they've been on Splash Mountain this
week -- they are the ones more interested in form than substance. (If I
were interested in form, I'd be able to DRAW DD better!)
The use of $crooge as simply an actor in MCC or as an
inaccurate form in DUCKTALES isn't WRONG... it's just very, very
shallow compared to the use intended by the character's creator, Dell
Comics / Carl Barks.
A long message, but I can only offer a few cogent comments. In
the American newspaper strips, an "Aunt Fanny" sent a letter to Donald
introducing "cousin Gus". That's the way I depict the set-up in my Duck
Family Tree.
I've grown up knowing that Grandma drove an old Studebaker
Electric. But who "invented" it? I never considered that. Was it in the
newspapers first or in Barks' comics?
HARRY:
Why is Egmont reviving the Gottfredson Mouse? I am certain it is
Byron's work! He is a huge fan of the FG Mouse. And what does Bob Foster
do? He is in (partial?) charge of commissioning stories for use in the
DIGESTS, as Byron is in charge of the comic books.
TRYG:
Where is Duckburg and-slash-or Calisota? We've discussed this
before you popped in. I don't mind the idea of this being one of those
things left to the imagination, especially since, as the name implies,
it seems to be a state which, for story purposes, has California climate
part of the time and Minnesota climate at other times. As I began each
chapter of the Lo$ with a map of that chapter's action, I was compelled
to show EXACTLY where Calisota and Duckburg are, but only if someone
goes to the extra trouble of comparing my map with an actual map of the
coastline of the western USA. That'll be in chapter 10 which you'll see
in nearly TWO YEARS but which will be used in Europe any day now.
And this matter of who is the $crooge in DUCKTALES and MICKEY'S
XMAS CAROL. I mostly agree with Harry and Tryg. I also enjoy DUCKTALES
and I enjoy MCC, sorta. The fact that I know that's not the "real"
$crooge doesn't preclude my enjoyment. However, Disney's use of the
classic characters (whom they abandonned into the realm of merchandising
in 1940 for MM and 1954 with DD) as simply ACTORS filling out roles only
shows that they've lost all direction or understanding of who those
characters originally were in even Disney's shallow original uses, and
have given up on them as anything but visual shapes of ink lines.
Obviously, the only "REAL" $crooge can be the Dell comic book version,
in its *slight* variations -- not as an actor. And anytime I refer to
the "real" DD, I make sure I say the real COMIC BOOK DD, which is the
only one I think is especially worthy of particular interest as I see no
reason to be especially infatuated with a merchandising ink-line
configuration. I believe in characters, not shapes. Substance over form.
When Disney deals with these characters (which they own through a mere
legal loophole), they deal with simple form; when the comic books use
them, they deal with SUBSTANCE. Even though I'm an American, I still
profess a preference to the LATTER as unpatriotic as it may be these
days. I hope that we on the Disney Comics Forum are more interested in
substance than form. The people on those Disney BBSs who argue about how
cute Ariel is or how many times they've been on Splash Mountain this
week -- they are the ones more interested in form than substance. (If I
were interested in form, I'd be able to DRAW DD better!)
The use of $crooge as simply an actor in MCC or as an
inaccurate form in DUCKTALES isn't WRONG... it's just very, very
shallow compared to the use intended by the character's creator, Dell
Comics / Carl Barks.
Mattias Hallin
Animated actors
Message 94 -
1993-12-22 at 10:48:53
Don (and Tryg and Harry and Per, who has also discussed this):
You're quite
right, Don, when you say that using $crooge as a "mere" actor is shallow indeed
as compared to how Barks has and you are using him in comics - as a fullblown
character; as an interesting human being. BUT I also think that this argument
misses a point: an actor is not supposed to be particularly interesting in his
own right, as himself, WHILE ACTING. Because then he is, in a certain sense,
someone else - another character! And THAT character can be more or less
interesting, he/she can be deep or shallow, but whatever he is or isn't it has
relatively little to do with the REAL character of the ACTOR. That is to say:
the actor gives FORM to his part, and by his acting abilities gives SUBSTANCE
to a character that didn't exist before, but this substance mustn't be confused
with whatever substance he/she might have in real life. To me, it makes no
difference whether $crooge McDuck or Michael Caine acts the part of Ebenezer
Scrooge - except that one INTERPRETATION OF THE PART OF EBENEZER might be
better than the other or it might not. What I'm interested in is NOT
primarily what Michael Caine is like in private life, but how the character of
Ebenezer Scrooge is portrayed by him.
Of course this must seem pretty obvious to you - a thousand apologies if I seem
to be lecturing.
All my best!!!
Mattias
You're quite
right, Don, when you say that using $crooge as a "mere" actor is shallow indeed
as compared to how Barks has and you are using him in comics - as a fullblown
character; as an interesting human being. BUT I also think that this argument
misses a point: an actor is not supposed to be particularly interesting in his
own right, as himself, WHILE ACTING. Because then he is, in a certain sense,
someone else - another character! And THAT character can be more or less
interesting, he/she can be deep or shallow, but whatever he is or isn't it has
relatively little to do with the REAL character of the ACTOR. That is to say:
the actor gives FORM to his part, and by his acting abilities gives SUBSTANCE
to a character that didn't exist before, but this substance mustn't be confused
with whatever substance he/she might have in real life. To me, it makes no
difference whether $crooge McDuck or Michael Caine acts the part of Ebenezer
Scrooge - except that one INTERPRETATION OF THE PART OF EBENEZER might be
better than the other or it might not. What I'm interested in is NOT
primarily what Michael Caine is like in private life, but how the character of
Ebenezer Scrooge is portrayed by him.
Of course this must seem pretty obvious to you - a thousand apologies if I seem
to be lecturing.
All my best!!!
Mattias
Mattias Hallin
Animated actors
Message 95 -
1993-12-22 at 13:31:53
Don:
When I said: "What I'm interested in is NOT primarily what Michael Caine
is like in private life, but how the character of Ebenezer Scrooge is
portrayed by him", I didn't mean that I'd GENERALLY find f'rinstance MCC and
the character of Ebenezer Scrooge therein THE most or only interesting aspect,
NOR did I mean to say that a part played by $crooge McDuck the actor is more
interesting to me than $crooge McDuck the PERSON - it's actually the other way
'round! Only in the context of VIEWING a performance is it true, to my mind,
that the character PORTRAYED is more interesting than the character of the
PORTRAYER!
It seemed to me that this point might have been a bit obscure in my previous
posting; I thought I might as well try to elucidate. Hope I did that, and not
the reverse!
Mattias
When I said: "What I'm interested in is NOT primarily what Michael Caine
is like in private life, but how the character of Ebenezer Scrooge is
portrayed by him", I didn't mean that I'd GENERALLY find f'rinstance MCC and
the character of Ebenezer Scrooge therein THE most or only interesting aspect,
NOR did I mean to say that a part played by $crooge McDuck the actor is more
interesting to me than $crooge McDuck the PERSON - it's actually the other way
'round! Only in the context of VIEWING a performance is it true, to my mind,
that the character PORTRAYED is more interesting than the character of the
PORTRAYER!
It seemed to me that this point might have been a bit obscure in my previous
posting; I thought I might as well try to elucidate. Hope I did that, and not
the reverse!
Mattias
Harry Fluks
Bob Foster
Message 96 -
1993-12-22 at 19:10:38
Don wrote:
> And what does Bob Foster
> do? He is in (partial?) charge of commissioning stories for use in the
> DIGESTS, as Byron is in charge of the comic books.
Those are the "pocket books" filled with bad or very bad Italian stories?
I can't imagine that an editor would be working full-time on that...
--Harry.
> And what does Bob Foster
> do? He is in (partial?) charge of commissioning stories for use in the
> DIGESTS, as Byron is in charge of the comic books.
Those are the "pocket books" filled with bad or very bad Italian stories?
I can't imagine that an editor would be working full-time on that...
--Harry.
James Williams
Disney-comics digest #191.
Message 97 -
1993-12-22 at 20:36:43
>The guy who played Ebenezer Scrooge in MICKEY'S XMAS CAROL was
>no more the real $crooge McDuck as was the guy on DUCKTALES. It was
>the Disney Corporation's usual misuse of that Dell/Barks character.
Two comments:
First, why is this called Mickey's ..., he had a minor role. It
should have been Disney's ...
Second, I don't think Disney is mis-using their characters. Disney's
characters don't have any personalities. Their personalities vary
based on Disney's need. Disney has always seen them more as actors
playing roles than anything else. In their mind, Bark's US is just
one role played by US.
>I won't even watch old DD cartoons any more because of that awful
>voice they gave Don
I've always been amazed that a studio which did such pioneering work
in animation, never understood the role sound plays in animation. They
really limited Donald and Chip-and-Dale because of their voices.
>I won't even watch old DD cartoons any more partly because of the
>violence.
I've always wondered where the attitute that "Disney=Wholesome" came
from. Their early work was extremely violent and often tasteless.
Their characters were mischevious. This unwholesomeness was prevelent
in both their newspaper strips and animation.
>Of course we could say: who cares, it's just a different character.
>But the danger is, that people can't distinguish them, and think the
>comic books $crooge is the same as the TV $crooge. Even comic editors
>started to think that way, with disasterous effects on the comics...
Agreed. It was obvious that Len Wein and Marv Wolfman went to Disney
for the money, not because they loved the characters. The result were
a bunch of rotten comics.
Unfortunatley, the opposite isn't always true. Egmont is run by people
who love the characters. Egmont only hires creators with the same
attitude. But, they still produce tons of garbage.
Happy Holidays
James Williams
>no more the real $crooge McDuck as was the guy on DUCKTALES. It was
>the Disney Corporation's usual misuse of that Dell/Barks character.
Two comments:
First, why is this called Mickey's ..., he had a minor role. It
should have been Disney's ...
Second, I don't think Disney is mis-using their characters. Disney's
characters don't have any personalities. Their personalities vary
based on Disney's need. Disney has always seen them more as actors
playing roles than anything else. In their mind, Bark's US is just
one role played by US.
>I won't even watch old DD cartoons any more because of that awful
>voice they gave Don
I've always been amazed that a studio which did such pioneering work
in animation, never understood the role sound plays in animation. They
really limited Donald and Chip-and-Dale because of their voices.
>I won't even watch old DD cartoons any more partly because of the
>violence.
I've always wondered where the attitute that "Disney=Wholesome" came
from. Their early work was extremely violent and often tasteless.
Their characters were mischevious. This unwholesomeness was prevelent
in both their newspaper strips and animation.
>Of course we could say: who cares, it's just a different character.
>But the danger is, that people can't distinguish them, and think the
>comic books $crooge is the same as the TV $crooge. Even comic editors
>started to think that way, with disasterous effects on the comics...
Agreed. It was obvious that Len Wein and Marv Wolfman went to Disney
for the money, not because they loved the characters. The result were
a bunch of rotten comics.
Unfortunatley, the opposite isn't always true. Egmont is run by people
who love the characters. Egmont only hires creators with the same
attitude. But, they still produce tons of garbage.
Happy Holidays
James Williams
Torsten Wesley Adair
Disney-comics digest #191.
Message 98 -
1993-12-22 at 21:07:54
On Wed, 22 Dec 1993, James Williams wrote:
> >The guy who played Ebenezer Scrooge in MICKEY'S XMAS CAROL was
> >no more the real $crooge McDuck as was the guy on DUCKTALES. It was
> >the Disney Corporation's usual misuse of that Dell/Barks character.
> Two comments:
> First, why is this called Mickey's ..., he had a minor role. It
> should have been Disney's ...
It was called "Mickey's..." because this was the first Mickey Mouse
cartoon since the 1960s. I think "The Prince and the Pauper" was
"Disney's..."
> Second, I don't think Disney is mis-using their characters. Disney's
> characters don't have any personalities. Their personalities vary
> based on Disney's need. Disney has always seen them more as actors
> playing roles than anything else. In their mind, Bark's US is just
> one role played by US.
While Mickey has changed over the years (adventurer to
sickening-nice-guy), the generic personalities have been maintained in the
cartoons. Donald has a short temper, Goofy is the naive clutz, Daisy is
the typical girlfriend who gets jealous and angry, but never dumps Donald.
If Disney revives their animated shorts, I think they will use these types.
> >I won't even watch old DD cartoons any more because of that awful
> >voice they gave Don
> I've always been amazed that a studio which did such pioneering work
> in animation, never understood the role sound plays in animation. They
> really limited Donald and Chip-and-Dale because of their voices.
Oh, but no-one sounds more angry than when Donald starts to curse! And
Chip and Dale, well, yes, they have squeeky voices, but I expect that of
them. Warner's Mack and Tosh have wonderful British accents, which works
because they are so formal.
One question. In the cartoon where Donald takes speech pills and sounds
civilized, does his "new" voice sound like something Donald would say?
> >I won't even watch old DD cartoons any more partly because of the
> >violence.
But that's what cartoons are all about! Physical comedy! My favorite
cartoon is where Donald goes to the Andes, and has a battle of wills with
a llama! And Goofy! What a stuntman!
> I've always wondered where the attitute that "Disney=Wholesome" came
> from. Their early work was extremely violent and often tasteless.
> Their characters were mischevious. This unwholesomeness was prevelent
> in both their newspaper strips and animation.
Careful marketing of image. And some lousy live-action movies, like the
Barefoot Executive, or the Boatniks.
> >Of course we could say: who cares, it's just a different character.
> >But the danger is, that people can't distinguish them, and think the
> >comic books $crooge is the same as the TV $crooge. Even comic editors
> >started to think that way, with disasterous effects on the comics...
> Agreed. It was obvious that Len Wein and Marv Wolfman went to Disney
> for the money, not because they loved the characters. The result were
> a bunch of rotten comics.
I stopped buying Gladstone when they raised their prices to $0.95. I did
follow the news reports.
Speaking of Marv Wolfman, what's the general opinion of Disney Adventures
Magazine?
> Unfortunatley, the opposite isn't always true. Egmont is run by people
> who love the characters. Egmont only hires creators with the same
> attitude. But, they still produce tons of garbage.
Sturgeon's Law: 97% of everything is garbage.
You've got to kiss a lot of toads to find a prince.
Torsten Adair torsten at cwis.unomaha.edu Omaha, NE, USA
> >The guy who played Ebenezer Scrooge in MICKEY'S XMAS CAROL was
> >no more the real $crooge McDuck as was the guy on DUCKTALES. It was
> >the Disney Corporation's usual misuse of that Dell/Barks character.
> Two comments:
> First, why is this called Mickey's ..., he had a minor role. It
> should have been Disney's ...
It was called "Mickey's..." because this was the first Mickey Mouse
cartoon since the 1960s. I think "The Prince and the Pauper" was
"Disney's..."
> Second, I don't think Disney is mis-using their characters. Disney's
> characters don't have any personalities. Their personalities vary
> based on Disney's need. Disney has always seen them more as actors
> playing roles than anything else. In their mind, Bark's US is just
> one role played by US.
While Mickey has changed over the years (adventurer to
sickening-nice-guy), the generic personalities have been maintained in the
cartoons. Donald has a short temper, Goofy is the naive clutz, Daisy is
the typical girlfriend who gets jealous and angry, but never dumps Donald.
If Disney revives their animated shorts, I think they will use these types.
> >I won't even watch old DD cartoons any more because of that awful
> >voice they gave Don
> I've always been amazed that a studio which did such pioneering work
> in animation, never understood the role sound plays in animation. They
> really limited Donald and Chip-and-Dale because of their voices.
Oh, but no-one sounds more angry than when Donald starts to curse! And
Chip and Dale, well, yes, they have squeeky voices, but I expect that of
them. Warner's Mack and Tosh have wonderful British accents, which works
because they are so formal.
One question. In the cartoon where Donald takes speech pills and sounds
civilized, does his "new" voice sound like something Donald would say?
> >I won't even watch old DD cartoons any more partly because of the
> >violence.
But that's what cartoons are all about! Physical comedy! My favorite
cartoon is where Donald goes to the Andes, and has a battle of wills with
a llama! And Goofy! What a stuntman!
> I've always wondered where the attitute that "Disney=Wholesome" came
> from. Their early work was extremely violent and often tasteless.
> Their characters were mischevious. This unwholesomeness was prevelent
> in both their newspaper strips and animation.
Careful marketing of image. And some lousy live-action movies, like the
Barefoot Executive, or the Boatniks.
> >Of course we could say: who cares, it's just a different character.
> >But the danger is, that people can't distinguish them, and think the
> >comic books $crooge is the same as the TV $crooge. Even comic editors
> >started to think that way, with disasterous effects on the comics...
> Agreed. It was obvious that Len Wein and Marv Wolfman went to Disney
> for the money, not because they loved the characters. The result were
> a bunch of rotten comics.
I stopped buying Gladstone when they raised their prices to $0.95. I did
follow the news reports.
Speaking of Marv Wolfman, what's the general opinion of Disney Adventures
Magazine?
> Unfortunatley, the opposite isn't always true. Egmont is run by people
> who love the characters. Egmont only hires creators with the same
> attitude. But, they still produce tons of garbage.
Sturgeon's Law: 97% of everything is garbage.
You've got to kiss a lot of toads to find a prince.
Torsten Adair torsten at cwis.unomaha.edu Omaha, NE, USA
Don Rosa
+Postage Due+Disney-comics digest #192.
Message 99 -
1993-12-23 at 07:50:34
MATTIAS:
I'm not sure if you were "lecturing"... and I can't disagree
with anything you say about how the important thing is how an actor like
Michael Caine portrays Ebenezer $crooge; but to compare that to $crooge
McDuck playing Ebenezer $crooge is where you lose me. This implies that
you feel the same way that James Williams correctly states that Disney
views $crooge in their helpless manner -- that he is NOT $crooge McDuck,
but a character PLAYING that part, as he "played" the part of Ebenezer
Scrooge. This is what strikes me as a serious, basic misconception of
who $crooge McDuck (or Donald Duck or Sherlock Holmes or Nero Wolf or
Indiana Jones) is/are; would you like to see Indiana Jones playing
Ebenezer Scrooge? Sherlock Holmes playing $crooge McDuck? $crooge
McDuck's similarity to Ebenezer Scrooge may be closer than Indiana Jones
is to Ebenezer, but the basic idea, to me, is equally silly and an equal
misuse and misunderstanding of who a "character" is. A "character" can't
portray another "character" -- that sounds like something out of a Monty
Python sketch.
But as silly an idea as it is, Disney's intellectual hands are
tied through their lack of actual use of these characters for 50 years
as well as their total inexperience in using a character ($crooge) whom
they never had an iota of participation in creating or shaping. It also
indicates their being lost in the morass of modern Hollywood thinking of
always making movies or shows which "are like" this or that, rather than
creating something totally new. From $crooge McDuck "playing" Ebenezer
Scrooge they went to Baloo the Bear "playing" the TALESPIN Baloo.
Projecting this silliness another batch of years, and considering the
popularity of their recent cute properties, someday they'll do a remake
of THE LITTLE MERMAID with Belle "playing" Ariel and the Beast "playing"
Sebastian. If a Disney exec were reading this right now, I'll bet he's
filing that idea away for future use.
I'm not sure if you were "lecturing"... and I can't disagree
with anything you say about how the important thing is how an actor like
Michael Caine portrays Ebenezer $crooge; but to compare that to $crooge
McDuck playing Ebenezer $crooge is where you lose me. This implies that
you feel the same way that James Williams correctly states that Disney
views $crooge in their helpless manner -- that he is NOT $crooge McDuck,
but a character PLAYING that part, as he "played" the part of Ebenezer
Scrooge. This is what strikes me as a serious, basic misconception of
who $crooge McDuck (or Donald Duck or Sherlock Holmes or Nero Wolf or
Indiana Jones) is/are; would you like to see Indiana Jones playing
Ebenezer Scrooge? Sherlock Holmes playing $crooge McDuck? $crooge
McDuck's similarity to Ebenezer Scrooge may be closer than Indiana Jones
is to Ebenezer, but the basic idea, to me, is equally silly and an equal
misuse and misunderstanding of who a "character" is. A "character" can't
portray another "character" -- that sounds like something out of a Monty
Python sketch.
But as silly an idea as it is, Disney's intellectual hands are
tied through their lack of actual use of these characters for 50 years
as well as their total inexperience in using a character ($crooge) whom
they never had an iota of participation in creating or shaping. It also
indicates their being lost in the morass of modern Hollywood thinking of
always making movies or shows which "are like" this or that, rather than
creating something totally new. From $crooge McDuck "playing" Ebenezer
Scrooge they went to Baloo the Bear "playing" the TALESPIN Baloo.
Projecting this silliness another batch of years, and considering the
popularity of their recent cute properties, someday they'll do a remake
of THE LITTLE MERMAID with Belle "playing" Ariel and the Beast "playing"
Sebastian. If a Disney exec were reading this right now, I'll bet he's
filing that idea away for future use.
Tryg Helseth
+Postage Due+Disney-comics digest #191.
Message 100 -
1993-12-23 at 11:53:59
On 22 Dec 93 00:00:43 EST, Don Rosa wrote:
> Where is Duckburg and-slash-or Calisota? We've discussed this
>before you popped in.
Oops! I better drop back to lurk mode until I've read all those back-
issue digests. Could anyone tell me what compression method is used on
those .gz files? I ftp'ed one, but don't know how to uncompress it.
>I was compelled to show EXACTLY where Calisota and Duckburg are, but only
>if someone goes to the extra trouble of comparing my map with an actual
>map of the coastline of the western USA. That'll be in chapter 10 which
>you'll see in nearly TWO YEARS but which will be used in Europe any day now.
Thanks for the info. I hope Gladstone will still be publishing the Disney
comics two years from now. Seems like a long wait, but then, I've waited
all these years already... :)
Harry:
>Which brings me to the next question: who invented Grandma's car? Was it in
>the Taliaferro strips as well?
I don't know who invented it, but it must have had the longest extension
cord in Duckburg! Do you remember any episodes showing batteries in
the car (or Grandma plugging it in to re-charge)?
Torsten:
> >I won't even watch old DD cartoons any more partly because of the
> >violence.
>But that's what cartoons are all about! Physical comedy! My favorite
>cartoon is where Donald goes to the Andes, and has a battle of wills with
>a llama! And Goofy! What a stuntman!
I agree that cartoons are about physical comedy, and when the studios strive
for total realism that the whole idea is lost. As for DD, however, I find
the slapstick episodes to be rather mean spirited. Ditto for Chip 'n' Dale.
Yet, I enjoy the Fleischer studio's Popeye even though it depicts violence
in the battles between Popeye and Bluto. To me that violence isn't quite
as senseless, as the characters are usually fighting for some purpose or
goal (Olive Oyl, for example) rather than just out of meanness.
Tryg Heseth <tryve at maroon.tc.umn.edu>
"I wish the all could be Calisota Ducks!" -The Beach Drakes
> Where is Duckburg and-slash-or Calisota? We've discussed this
>before you popped in.
Oops! I better drop back to lurk mode until I've read all those back-
issue digests. Could anyone tell me what compression method is used on
those .gz files? I ftp'ed one, but don't know how to uncompress it.
>I was compelled to show EXACTLY where Calisota and Duckburg are, but only
>if someone goes to the extra trouble of comparing my map with an actual
>map of the coastline of the western USA. That'll be in chapter 10 which
>you'll see in nearly TWO YEARS but which will be used in Europe any day now.
Thanks for the info. I hope Gladstone will still be publishing the Disney
comics two years from now. Seems like a long wait, but then, I've waited
all these years already... :)
Harry:
>Which brings me to the next question: who invented Grandma's car? Was it in
>the Taliaferro strips as well?
I don't know who invented it, but it must have had the longest extension
cord in Duckburg! Do you remember any episodes showing batteries in
the car (or Grandma plugging it in to re-charge)?
Torsten:
> >I won't even watch old DD cartoons any more partly because of the
> >violence.
>But that's what cartoons are all about! Physical comedy! My favorite
>cartoon is where Donald goes to the Andes, and has a battle of wills with
>a llama! And Goofy! What a stuntman!
I agree that cartoons are about physical comedy, and when the studios strive
for total realism that the whole idea is lost. As for DD, however, I find
the slapstick episodes to be rather mean spirited. Ditto for Chip 'n' Dale.
Yet, I enjoy the Fleischer studio's Popeye even though it depicts violence
in the battles between Popeye and Bluto. To me that violence isn't quite
as senseless, as the characters are usually fighting for some purpose or
goal (Olive Oyl, for example) rather than just out of meanness.
Tryg Heseth <tryve at maroon.tc.umn.edu>
"I wish the all could be Calisota Ducks!" -The Beach Drakes
Bror Hellman
Disney-comics digest #191.
Message 101 -
1993-12-23 at 13:16:23
On Wed, 22 Dec 1993, Torsten Wesley Adair wrote:
> > Second, I don't think Disney is mis-using their characters. Disney's
> > characters don't have any personalities. Their personalities vary
> > based on Disney's need. Disney has always seen them more as actors
> > playing roles than anything else. In their mind, Bark's US is just
> > one role played by US.
>
> While Mickey has changed over the years (adventurer to
> sickening-nice-guy), the generic personalities have been maintained in the
> cartoons. Donald has a short temper, Goofy is the naive clutz, Daisy is
> the typical girlfriend who gets jealous and angry, but never dumps Donald.
> If Disney revives their animated shorts, I think they will use these types.
Well, I think that's because they're stuck in their roles. It's like
other (live) actors. I mean, Bela Lugosi, Rudoplh Valentino, Clark Gable,
Mae West, they almost always played the same characters in film after film.
Steamboat Willie
----------------------------------------------
... Does The Little Mermaid wear an algebra?
----------------------------------------------
Internet: hellman at proxxi.uf.se, DuckNet: hellman at 313:100/13.0
> > Second, I don't think Disney is mis-using their characters. Disney's
> > characters don't have any personalities. Their personalities vary
> > based on Disney's need. Disney has always seen them more as actors
> > playing roles than anything else. In their mind, Bark's US is just
> > one role played by US.
>
> While Mickey has changed over the years (adventurer to
> sickening-nice-guy), the generic personalities have been maintained in the
> cartoons. Donald has a short temper, Goofy is the naive clutz, Daisy is
> the typical girlfriend who gets jealous and angry, but never dumps Donald.
> If Disney revives their animated shorts, I think they will use these types.
Well, I think that's because they're stuck in their roles. It's like
other (live) actors. I mean, Bela Lugosi, Rudoplh Valentino, Clark Gable,
Mae West, they almost always played the same characters in film after film.
Steamboat Willie
----------------------------------------------
... Does The Little Mermaid wear an algebra?
----------------------------------------------
Internet: hellman at proxxi.uf.se, DuckNet: hellman at 313:100/13.0
Mattias Hallin
Grandma's car, and ducks as hams
Message 102 -
1993-12-23 at 15:44:55
Tryg:
About where/with whom Grandma's car originated, I'm pretty confident it
was with Taliaferro - at least I seem to recall her driving a car similar to
the one she has in Barks' episodes in a fairly early Taliaferro strip... but I
might be wrong?! Any one else has any ideas about this?
Now, about that car being an electric, and recharging it's batteries and so
on... well, there's is at least one story I can remember offhand: a Gyro story
(incidentally the one where Mickey's nephews appear) where Gyro traps lightning
in a box, by way of a kite a la Franklin, in order to get inexpensive eltric
power. Which indeed he does... and how! Among other gags, he recharges
Grandma's car (she just happens to drive by, it seems) from this lightning box,
and it takes off at break-neck speed! I don't know off-hand whether or not
Barks himself wrote this particular story, but it would least seem to indicate
that the car in question is indeed electric, and that it does need recharging
occasionally...
...which just might be a problem of it's own - I also seem to recall something
somewhere that says that Grandma's farm doesn't have electricity - but on the
other hand there IS (and of this I'm sure) the Grandma story where HD$L comes
for a visit and Grandma says about the TV-set Donald has given her that "she
tried to turn it on, but a lot of rude people stuck their heads out of it, so
she just turned it of again", or something to that effect; then again, this is,
I think, the "Donald's Grandma Duck"-story of some previous fame here on the
net, and that story is NOT written by Barks. Well...
Also, Tryg: I don't see no reason for you to go lurking again, just because
we've had some subjects under discussion before; in fact I'd love to see all
you nice but shy lurkers out there to come out of your closets, and play a
nice round of golf with the rest of us - I'm absolutely POSITIVE Gladstone
Gander won't show up to spoil our fun!
Don:
About this "can a character act another character?"-question... You gave
some rather good examples there, of how absurd such a principle could become;
and NO! I don't think Indiana Jones would make a very good Ebenezer, nor that
the Beast would be cut out for the role of Sebastian... and yet. I think, one
reason that I PERSONALLY might be inclined to feel different about $crooge
McDuck (the REAL one, that is) is because to me he doesn't feel like "just" a
character - to me he is a person. Well, I don't mean that I ACTUALLY believe
him to exist (or have existed) FOR REAL in MY universe; but it's pretty close!
Another reason, of course, that I don't object or react so aversely to $crooge
acting Scrooge is probably closer to how Disney must have reasoned: hey!
they're both misers, and they even have similar names!!! Which is of course
rather shallow reasoning - don't I know it - looking almost only to form. And I
don't for a second believe that Disney would think like "well, $crooge McDuck,
this interesting personality that Carl Barks created and developed - wouldn't
he, being such a rather complex person make a fine actor"...
Well, for my part this is about as much as I've got to say on the subject, so
if you wanna consider it closed - please do; or if you want to continue, that's
fine, too - and concerning the more principal part of the question, I guess I
think you're right on the whole - maybe a character playing another character
is not a generally good idea, even though the result occasionaly - as with MCC
f'rinstance - can be rather charming entertainment. But then, none of us has
seemed to say anything else on THAT issue... And it IS certainly and indeed a
pity that the people at Disney aren't interested in the full potentials of the
characters they happen to own - now, there we certainly agree!!!
Y'all:
Now I'm outta here in a little while, and then I won't be back until next
year - January 3rd, I think - so until then: All me best,
GOD JUL och GOTT NYTT AR!!!
Mattias
About where/with whom Grandma's car originated, I'm pretty confident it
was with Taliaferro - at least I seem to recall her driving a car similar to
the one she has in Barks' episodes in a fairly early Taliaferro strip... but I
might be wrong?! Any one else has any ideas about this?
Now, about that car being an electric, and recharging it's batteries and so
on... well, there's is at least one story I can remember offhand: a Gyro story
(incidentally the one where Mickey's nephews appear) where Gyro traps lightning
in a box, by way of a kite a la Franklin, in order to get inexpensive eltric
power. Which indeed he does... and how! Among other gags, he recharges
Grandma's car (she just happens to drive by, it seems) from this lightning box,
and it takes off at break-neck speed! I don't know off-hand whether or not
Barks himself wrote this particular story, but it would least seem to indicate
that the car in question is indeed electric, and that it does need recharging
occasionally...
...which just might be a problem of it's own - I also seem to recall something
somewhere that says that Grandma's farm doesn't have electricity - but on the
other hand there IS (and of this I'm sure) the Grandma story where HD$L comes
for a visit and Grandma says about the TV-set Donald has given her that "she
tried to turn it on, but a lot of rude people stuck their heads out of it, so
she just turned it of again", or something to that effect; then again, this is,
I think, the "Donald's Grandma Duck"-story of some previous fame here on the
net, and that story is NOT written by Barks. Well...
Also, Tryg: I don't see no reason for you to go lurking again, just because
we've had some subjects under discussion before; in fact I'd love to see all
you nice but shy lurkers out there to come out of your closets, and play a
nice round of golf with the rest of us - I'm absolutely POSITIVE Gladstone
Gander won't show up to spoil our fun!
Don:
About this "can a character act another character?"-question... You gave
some rather good examples there, of how absurd such a principle could become;
and NO! I don't think Indiana Jones would make a very good Ebenezer, nor that
the Beast would be cut out for the role of Sebastian... and yet. I think, one
reason that I PERSONALLY might be inclined to feel different about $crooge
McDuck (the REAL one, that is) is because to me he doesn't feel like "just" a
character - to me he is a person. Well, I don't mean that I ACTUALLY believe
him to exist (or have existed) FOR REAL in MY universe; but it's pretty close!
Another reason, of course, that I don't object or react so aversely to $crooge
acting Scrooge is probably closer to how Disney must have reasoned: hey!
they're both misers, and they even have similar names!!! Which is of course
rather shallow reasoning - don't I know it - looking almost only to form. And I
don't for a second believe that Disney would think like "well, $crooge McDuck,
this interesting personality that Carl Barks created and developed - wouldn't
he, being such a rather complex person make a fine actor"...
Well, for my part this is about as much as I've got to say on the subject, so
if you wanna consider it closed - please do; or if you want to continue, that's
fine, too - and concerning the more principal part of the question, I guess I
think you're right on the whole - maybe a character playing another character
is not a generally good idea, even though the result occasionaly - as with MCC
f'rinstance - can be rather charming entertainment. But then, none of us has
seemed to say anything else on THAT issue... And it IS certainly and indeed a
pity that the people at Disney aren't interested in the full potentials of the
characters they happen to own - now, there we certainly agree!!!
Y'all:
Now I'm outta here in a little while, and then I won't be back until next
year - January 3rd, I think - so until then: All me best,
GOD JUL och GOTT NYTT AR!!!
Mattias
Mattias Hallin
Addendum et cetera
Message 103 -
1993-12-23 at 16:58:41
Don:
I just printed out YOUR last posting, and found I hadn't made one point
clear enough in MY last posting: NO! I DON'T think of $crooge acting the
part of what we think is the real $crooge McDuck - I think that is who he is.
What I've meant to say (but have some difficulty to express, perhaps, in
another language) is that I kinda like the idea of the REAL $crooge acting the
part of Ebenezer, just as I like the idea of the REAL Donald Duck acting in all
those 30's and 40's cartoons - hell, it ain't HIS fault if the script is lousy,
or the director insists on a lot of slapstick... Do you see what I mean? I know
that this theory won't work half as well if you ask me again to explain
TaleSpin in these terms; nor do I really feel that the $crooge in DuckTales is
actually acted by the REAL $crooge - they probably picked some duck of the
street, put false whiskers on him and told him to go all Scots... and I bet
that HD&L are played by some overpaid duck kid-actors, too!
I know - it's all nonsense, but at least it's fun nonsense; well, you know...
Exeunt Mattias!
I just printed out YOUR last posting, and found I hadn't made one point
clear enough in MY last posting: NO! I DON'T think of $crooge acting the
part of what we think is the real $crooge McDuck - I think that is who he is.
What I've meant to say (but have some difficulty to express, perhaps, in
another language) is that I kinda like the idea of the REAL $crooge acting the
part of Ebenezer, just as I like the idea of the REAL Donald Duck acting in all
those 30's and 40's cartoons - hell, it ain't HIS fault if the script is lousy,
or the director insists on a lot of slapstick... Do you see what I mean? I know
that this theory won't work half as well if you ask me again to explain
TaleSpin in these terms; nor do I really feel that the $crooge in DuckTales is
actually acted by the REAL $crooge - they probably picked some duck of the
street, put false whiskers on him and told him to go all Scots... and I bet
that HD&L are played by some overpaid duck kid-actors, too!
I know - it's all nonsense, but at least it's fun nonsense; well, you know...
Exeunt Mattias!
Wilmer Rivers
More Xmas Carol
Message 104 -
1993-12-23 at 18:46:53
One more comment about Mickey's Christmas Carol, if you can tolerate my
whipping what is by now a thoroughly dead horse. In previous postings
to this list, many people have commented on the Pirandello-esque "play
within a play" concept of having one set of fictional characters (from
the Disney universe) play another set of fictional characters (from the
Dickens universe), concentrating on what they consider the miscasting of
Scrooge McDuck as Ebeneezer Scrooge. I understand their objections, but
I consider this particular example to be by far the least egregious case
of miscasting. I had much stronger feelings of dissatisfaction with
Donald as Ebeneezer's good-natured nephew Fred. I suppose it was OK to
use Mickey as Bob Cratchett (a "mousey" little character, when you get
right down to it), but it was a complete disaster to use Goofy as the
ghost of Jacob Marley!!!! What in heaven's name were they thinking of?
Wilmer Rivers
whipping what is by now a thoroughly dead horse. In previous postings
to this list, many people have commented on the Pirandello-esque "play
within a play" concept of having one set of fictional characters (from
the Disney universe) play another set of fictional characters (from the
Dickens universe), concentrating on what they consider the miscasting of
Scrooge McDuck as Ebeneezer Scrooge. I understand their objections, but
I consider this particular example to be by far the least egregious case
of miscasting. I had much stronger feelings of dissatisfaction with
Donald as Ebeneezer's good-natured nephew Fred. I suppose it was OK to
use Mickey as Bob Cratchett (a "mousey" little character, when you get
right down to it), but it was a complete disaster to use Goofy as the
ghost of Jacob Marley!!!! What in heaven's name were they thinking of?
Wilmer Rivers
James Williams
Disney-comics digest #192.
Message 105 -
1993-12-23 at 23:09:15
>I stopped buying Gladstone when they raised their prices to $0.95. I
>did follow the news reports.
I'm the exact opposite. When I was a kid, I tried reading Gold Key's
Disney Comics. I hated them. The only story I remember with any
fondness was 'Submarine Santa'. The only reason I bought the
Gladstone issues is because I had heard so many good things about
Carl Barks in the CBG.
>Speaking of Marv Wolfman, what's the general opinion of Disney Adventures
>Magazine?
Almost all of the stories revolve around Disney Afternoon characters.
The only recent comic book character story was the two part Mickey
Mouse story 'Return to Blaggard Castle'. This story was a classic
example of why Mickey isn't popular.
The quality of the other stories really vary. Also, the whole
concept is hampered by the fact that the stories are digests. This
means fewer panels per page and very little artwork. In digests,
everything has to be blatant.
A side note which some (including Don) should find very interesting.
Disney Adventure Digest has started publishing characters/stories
which are not owned by Disney. The first two items to recieve this
unique attention are William Van Horn's 'Nervous Rex' (Are these
new Nervous Rex stories -or- reprints from the old Fantagraphics
series?) and Jeff Smith's Bone. The first three installments of
Bone will be reprints with some minor edits. But Jeff does plan to
produce new Bone material for Disney Adventure Digest. This is
the most attention that I have ever seen Disney give Comic Book
Creators. It is a true shame that they cannot manage this type
of attention to their own creators.
Happy Holidays
James Williams
>did follow the news reports.
I'm the exact opposite. When I was a kid, I tried reading Gold Key's
Disney Comics. I hated them. The only story I remember with any
fondness was 'Submarine Santa'. The only reason I bought the
Gladstone issues is because I had heard so many good things about
Carl Barks in the CBG.
>Speaking of Marv Wolfman, what's the general opinion of Disney Adventures
>Magazine?
Almost all of the stories revolve around Disney Afternoon characters.
The only recent comic book character story was the two part Mickey
Mouse story 'Return to Blaggard Castle'. This story was a classic
example of why Mickey isn't popular.
The quality of the other stories really vary. Also, the whole
concept is hampered by the fact that the stories are digests. This
means fewer panels per page and very little artwork. In digests,
everything has to be blatant.
A side note which some (including Don) should find very interesting.
Disney Adventure Digest has started publishing characters/stories
which are not owned by Disney. The first two items to recieve this
unique attention are William Van Horn's 'Nervous Rex' (Are these
new Nervous Rex stories -or- reprints from the old Fantagraphics
series?) and Jeff Smith's Bone. The first three installments of
Bone will be reprints with some minor edits. But Jeff does plan to
produce new Bone material for Disney Adventure Digest. This is
the most attention that I have ever seen Disney give Comic Book
Creators. It is a true shame that they cannot manage this type
of attention to their own creators.
Happy Holidays
James Williams