Keskustelujen arkisto

On Tue, 18 Jan 1994, David A Gerstein wrote:
> Hi, Folks!
> A few things to put in my two cents about today:
> Torsten on selling comics in supermarkets
> ======================================================
> "Time/Warner places People and Life by checkouts. If DC
> Comics (owned by Warner) had the rights to Disney, they'd probably
> be there by now. I wouldn't be surprised if the new Looney Tunes
> comic book is place near checkouts."
> HUH? NEW LOONEY TUNES COMIC BOOK???! I didn't know about
> this! Have you actually seen such an item, or do you just mean that
> activity magazine with about 4 pages of subpar comics that's been sold
> for years?
> If there's a new LT comic line finally appearing in this
> country, it's time to start pressuring DC to reprint Carl Barks'
> "Porky Pig of the Mounties" -- that Barks Bear Book is a pretty muddy
> reprint, and it ain't in color either, Doc.

DC did a LT/MM miniseries a few years ago. The new series was
announced in the trades a few weeks ago. Look in DC Direct Currents for
more info.
The PPotM is a good idea. I remember reading LT/MM comic book
stories, and they weren't too bad (aside from the Road Runner being male,
having kids, and talking, and Honey Bunny, blech, it ruins the entire
homosexual humor of Bugs). I wonder what other gems there are? If I
remember correctly, Porky was given the role of an adventurer who didn't
want the job.

Torsten Adair torsten at cwis.unomaha.edu Omaha, NE, USA

DAVID:

The way I recall the scene, I'm pretty sure it's re-animated... I
remember observing fairly differing styles in that particular sequence; but
anyway, I'm going over to my parents tomorrow, where I and my brother keep OUR
(videotaped) print of TLP, and run it real slow-motion, just to be sure.

And speaking of TLP -- here in Lund, this winter, some artist created an
installation smack in front of the University Building. He called it "Bror
Duktigs piano" -- i.e. "Practical Pig's Piano"!!! It consisted of a full-size
(but, alas!!! unplayable) piano built entirely out of bricks!!! It looked great

I want to declare that the Three Little Pigs was definitely altered
in terms of animation. For one thing, I have seen the original visuals
with a French soundtrack at the Museum of Modern Art in New York.
The Wolf is definitely a Jewish peddlar. For another thing, I have read an
interview with Jack Hannah (I can't remember where at the moment but I'm
betting it's one conducted by Jim Korkis) where Hannah says that he did the
new animation for the revision. I believe that the new animation was done
in the early 1940's for a theatrical re-issue of the film.

___________________________________________________________________
Mark Mayerson Side Effects Software Inc.,
Internet: mayerson at sidefx.com Toronto, Ontario, Canada
(416) 366-4607

FIRSTLY:
I just had LOTS of trouble getting my antique, steam-powered,
1990 computer going. So, if I disappear from posting messages here, it's
because my computer broke down, and I'll be trying to get back as soon
as possible.

DAVID:
Russ Schroeder is not the only person censoring the art and
stories for Gladstone. There are several people who pass judgement on
the comics, but Russ is probably the only one of them that's ever SEEN a
comic book before. It was someone else that told Gladstone to omit all
the Scottish accents from my Lo$ stories; but Gladstone seems to have
the ability to call Russ for final judgement and in this case contested
the idea that a Scotch accent would be insulting -- and I think Russ
said to go ahead with the accents and not worry about it. Disney is a
corporation where "art" is by committee; nobody wants to do anything on
their own in order to protect themselves from looking like they've made
a mistake. For instance, David Seidman took the "War of the Wendigo"
story to about a dozen different people in the Disney corporate
structure asking if it was okay to use a story with Indians -- everyone
thought it was okay except that LAST guy. He'd kept showing it to people
until he found one who objected, and that veto by someone who just
didn't want to be bothered was all it took. That's how it works at
Disney.

TORSTEN:
Yes, there are items at check-out lanes that don't sell in the
millions. Ever notice their size? The calorie booklets are TINY. I'm
trying to impress on you that this is a matter of physical space. And
the grocery store DOESN'T "own" that space once the space on the rack
has been bought by a publisher. The publisher owns the space, and they
pay LOTS for it. I mean LOTS!!! Consider the size of the Disney Digest
compared to a Gladstone comic. And Gladstone couldn't just buy that
space for California or Arizona -- they'd hafta buy it for the entire
nation. And again, why would TIME or LIFE agree to relinquish their
space for Gladstone, even if Gladstone had the money to buy space for
just one comic? And which comic would that be? And.... (whew!)
Why isn't there an international emblem for the Junior
Woodchucks? Because we don't need one. The "JWW" symbol I use is the
original and it works just fine... all we need to do is add it to the
art. Why not have an international symbol for $crooge's money bin
instead of that dollar sign. No, we'll just let them add the dollar sign
in the Gladstone editions -- isn't that a better idea?
The JWW history? I have pretty much done a history of the Junior
Woodchucks between the Lo$ and the GotLL. Just keep watching (although
it will be almost 2 years before you'll see that Lo$ chapter.
Why don't I do some Horatio Hornblower jokes? I think you mean
Horatio ALGIER, right? He was the author of stories of youngsters
working their way to riches. Hornblower was C.S.Forester's British naval
hero c. 1800.

DAVID on The Big Bad Jewish Wolf:

>Wolf disguises himself as the Fuller Brush Man ("I work mah way
>through college!"), was I believe originally a scene in which BBW
>dresses up as the traditional stereotypical jewish peddlar, and puts
>on a traditional stereotypical jiddisch accent ...[edited]...

> "I'm the Fuller Brush Man. I work me way through college!"
>
> Whereas the wolf's LIPS on the SCREEN say:
>
> "I'm the Fuller Brush Man. I .. [??] .. a free semple."

Well this comment sent me digging through some Disney Collection Albums
where I thought I had heard the original. (I never could read human lips,
much less wolf lips... <g> )

Well the five-record collection set, "The Macical Music of Walt Disney" had
the college student version. Then I remembered where I had heard the
original; a friend of mine is a record collector and he gave me a tape of
an early recording of "The 3 Little Pigs" (Victor 45-5094). On that
recording the wolf has a definite mock yiddish accent and says,

"I am the Fuller brush man. I'm giving away free sample."

So your lip reading of anthropomorphic wolves isn't too bad--especially if
the scene had been re-edited as Mark M and others suggest... <g>)

>
> I once saw a 1933 Disney book of TLP and this was the line the
>Wolf had in this sequence. His costume in even the earliest Disney
>book versions for this scene looks just as it does in the rerelease --
>leading me to believe that this scene was not reanimated, but that a
>CUT was made in the action -- presumably the wolf shrugged or did some
>other stereotyped "Jewish" gesture, which was removed -- and the
>animation is original aside from that.
>
> I'm Jewish myself, and perhaps the cartoon I'd like to own the
>most is the original version of "The Three Little Pigs."
>
>
> Joseph Walker's DD 50 Years of Happy Frustration
> ================================================
>
> This book was made by Justin Knowles in 1984 for DD's 50th
>birthday, and produced in Britain. I believe that Another Rainbow had
>something to do with it, because they were listed as importers, or
>something, for the book in Books in Print! (Though there was no
>notification of AR in the book itself) Meanwhile, back in Britain,
>the first few thousand printed copies were set aside for later sales
>as a limited edition.
>
> Disney Publishing went about this sale in 1992, making new
>slipcases for the books (which had been since imported), and having
>William Van Horn do a picture of the Duck Family to package with it.
>There's something that's not in our list... BTW this is a JOKE, not a
>real "family tree" because it's just a picture of the Ducks --
>including Flintheart and Magica -- sitting in a tree in a posed shot.
>The ducks are in no real "age-grouped" order either.
>
> BTW I think this is Van Horn's BEST Duck drawing of all time.
>
> Now for the other stuff that you mentioned... I don't mean to
>be picky, but it sounds like the three notes, presumably to Bruce
>Hamilton and Justin Knowles, REALLY ARE from Barks, Hannah, and yes,
>Nash! This sounds like this was a PRESENTATION copy put together in
>England which never was sent out and got mixed up with the copies that
>were used for the limited edition!
>
> If the signatures seem real on these letters, it's a fair bet.
>This could be "worth" over $1000 to drooling collectors.
>
> This bears looking into... just don't expect me to do it since
>I don't know where to begin!
>
> Your friend,
>
> David (Don't get your hopes up!)
> <David.A.Gerstein at Williams.edu>

Tryg Helseth <trygve at maroon.tc.umn.edu> Minneapolis, MN, USA
or <tryg.helseth at tstation.mn.org>

"I wish they all could be Calisota Ducks!" -The Beach Drakes

Dear Folks,

Just got a package from Mark Semich containing two copies of
my second published dialogue job, "The Hoard at the Rainbow's End."

First off, the text is pretty close to the version I turned in.
By far the biggest change is that Mu Shi Duk became Mushi Duk -- I
think that could be mispronounced as "mushy" and I'm not sure why it
was done. My favorite Chinese recipe is moo shi duck, and my name for
the Empress was a pun on that.

The last two panels on page 17 were altered to explain how the
rest of Onamatapang's residents escaped being buried in lava.
Ooooops... I meant to explain that!! This is a change I welcome 100%!
(Good dialogue too)

In two scenes I had the angry Don refer to the kids as
"infants" and "microbes" which was changed to simply "boys". I have
no idea why this was done. Scrooge's use of the comment "feh" was
changed to "phooey", "oh, so?" became "oh, yeah?" and Donald's use
of "avast" became "ahoy" (the last two were Disney's requests, I had
thought John was going to override them... were the other things
Disney's doing as well?)

Disney objected to the nude Donald diving underwater for the
treasure, so Gladstone's artists put an undershirt on him. Did you do
this, Gary? You're an art director, right? This was expertly done
(even if I don't think Disney has to fear voyeurs gaping at the
topless Duck)!

The entire coloring job, and for the most part the lettering,
was superb, a magnificent batch of work. Gary, please thank the gang
at Gladstone -- and yourself -- for doing a fine job here.

* * * * *

Now I'm interested in knowing what folks thought of my writing
here. I personally consider it an improvement over "Bugged by
Humbuggery" (which was actually done a whole year earlier) .... what
do you folks think? Any criticism is more than welcome.

I think the next dialog to appear from me is way off in
June... it will be "DD and the Secret of Mars" in the 60th Anniversary
special.

* * * * *

Today I discovered that a friend of mine here in college was a
rabid Disney comic fan, particularly when it came to the Ducks. She
has NEVER seen a Disney comic here, but has been to Europe many times,
during which she bought them left and right. She has always thought
that having the Disney characters in comics was an entirely European
thing.

Now she'll start buying Gladstones since I told her about
them. How many fans are out there who would like Gladstone's comics,
but just aren't aware of them? Can *anything* be done about it?

Your friend,

David Gerstein

"SO! Will Patrolio de Balonio de Donald Ducko *pay* for his
Christmas dinner, or will he wash dishes in *my* kitchen?"
<David.A.Gerstein at williams.edu>

P. S. Okay, so I like duck on the dinner table as well as in
32-page comics! FLAME ME!

HARRY:

>Maybe Gladstone can publish more original versions of "Darkest Africa" and
>"Race to the South Seas" in the colour albums CBL?

>GARY: What are Gladstone's plans?

Not sure, frankly. They will be published, of course, but in which version
depends on many things, not the least being that at Gladstone's current staff
level there's less than 1/2 of one person's attention able to be devoted to
any issue of any comic or album we currently put out (from editing to coloring
to writing text to typesetting...).

DAVID:

Manpower is the #2 reason Gladstone cannot publish much of what deservedly
should be published of Gottfredson's Mickey. The simple gruntwork it takes to
make most of the art publishable, particularly by today's printing standards,
is simply beyond our powers today. That doesn't even take into account
reformatting for comic book pages, a step we don't necessarily have to take, I
agree. But by the time we folded the original Gladstone line it was blatantly
obvious we'd been foolhardy to ever attempt to do the Mickey Mouse title as we
did. The harder we'd tried, the worse Mickey sold (and, sad to say, against
what seems to be a widely held belief among our readership, Scarpa's issues
ate our cash flow alive!).

And yet, we look back on those comics with great fondness, indeed. No one who
hasn't poured the sweat we did into those original Gladstone Mickeys can know
the bitterness we feel over the current state of affairs. Somehow, if we could
only get Disney to recognize Mickey as a character again, and not a trademark,
we could get things done even with our meager staff.

RON:

>>The debut strip for HD&L

>>So they haven't blown him up, but it's implied that they're certainly more
>>than one poor duck can stand.

>So how has Donald put up with them all these years?

Dad caved in after a firecracker pop; Donald would come down swinging even
after a healthy dose of TNT! It's my pet theory that Donald's indomitability
forced the nephews to mellow out, which is exactly what their mother figured
on. So any day now, she will return to collect them, and every story told or
to be told about the Ducks will occur at least one day before that...

TORSTEN:

Concerning cashier racks, Disney won't have any part of it on Gladstone's
behalf (they just want their royalty payments), and Marvel has just opted out
of spending $200 a month on continuing a co-op ad program with us. Gladstone's
all alone in the wilderness on this one. And guess which of the three
companies doesn't have tens of thousands of dollars and banks of lawyers to
throw into just negotiating this sort of thing?

HARRY AGAIN:

Lastest intelligence has it that Bob Foster is leaving Egmont in March and
joining Daan Jippes at Amblin'. Should be interesting.

DON:

Bombie...the death of Scrooge's parents...sheesh! Mystic religions and
mortality! We're not in Disneyland anymore...

I second all your remarks concerning Disney's lack of respect for comic books.
The real reason Disney attempted Disney Comics was because of a drastically
misguided notion that it was just another way of printing money.

Let me add to what you've already knocked yourself out trying to make clear of
late: checkout racks cost MORE than a million, if you want anything like
adequate market penetration. That's one big reason why Disney Adventures
persists, because of the rack investment Disney had to make (and which would
not be refunded, no sir, not on your life) before coming out with their first
issue. Oddly, Gladstone can't seem to come up with a measly million-plus to
throw into a marketing angle that has already proven itself to be decidedly
unspectacular.

Tell DISNEY we're a foreign publisher, fer cryin' out loud! Mebbe then they'll
let US go our merry way and start harrassing EGMONT!

TO ALL:

Sorry about "Lillehammer." When we checked the color proofs everything was on
register, but somehow the printer miscalculated. It was not a miscalculation
of sufficient severity to warrant going back to press, however (Rule #1 of
low-ticket periodical publication in the USA: NOTHING is of sufficient
severity to warrant going back to press; Rule #2: better luck next time!).

DAVID AGAIN:

The HD&L strip introducing the nephews has been forbidden for reprinting by
Disney. Discuss the situation all you like here, but be advised that the
discussion is closed between Gladstone and Disney.

I appreciate what you (and Don) had to say concerning revisionism. While we're
quite gleeful about it when it comes to the Egmont material we use (we HAVE to
revise the dialogue!), it is something we're much less certain of when it
comes to the "classics." Continued feedback from anyone on this will be
welcome.

WILMER:

As to Disney holding Gladstone to a tighter standard than their foreign
licensees, it seems they do, albeit unofficially. Disney is very, very jealous
of their image in the USA, and their efforts in defending it are breathtaking
to behold. I wonder sometimes if there wasn't some study Disney got hold of
concluding that children in the USA are congenitally incapable of perceiving
their own existence without corporate guidance, while children in other
countries are infused with a stubborn capacity to deal with reality
unassisted. This is, of course, ridiculous, but it would explain a lot...

DAVID ONCE AGAIN:

As to reprinting "Son of the Sun," you bring up a disturbing point. It may
have attained a status sufficient to shield it from censorship, especially as
Gladstone published it twice already, but I dunno...

Here's a little formula for you: Disney's villains are Disney characters,
therefore they are by the modern definition of Disney characters absolutely
sweet and forthright little charmers. They have to hug the kiddies at the
theme parks, after all (according to the commercials).

DON AGAIN, TOO:

Egmont isn't entirely unconstrained by Disney, but what you said pretty much
hit the proverbial nail a smart rap. Several years ago I heard that Indonesia
(I think it was Indonesia) nationalized the Disney characters, claiming they
were the property of the people of that country and so not subject to the
dictates of The Walt Disney Company as to their use in that country. It was a
fascinating bit of hearsay, but I never heard any more about it. Has anyone
else?

By the way, in all the discussions of the Duck family tree that I've perused
here, no direct mention seems to have been made concerning Barks' own version,
which Another Rainbow published in Set VI of the original Carl Barks Library.
I know you know all about it, but it just seems to me that it isn't figuring
in the discussions here. Am I pointing something pertinent out here, or just
utterly failing to intelligently follow the discussion in the first place?

ALL:

Russell Schroeder, once and future (make that imminent) Gladstone cover
artist, is indeed the Disney approval guy for the comics, among his many other
duties in beautiful downtown Burbank. But he is hardly a power unto himself,
and has been in general an amiable fellow to work with (he understands the
urgency of deadlines, a singular trait). I fume at him, and he is not always
pleased with me, but on the whole he tries to help us get things done and we
find much of his feedback useful. We hope he stays in the loop.

Y'know, my step-family is Native American, and yet they never make me check
with them to see if the comics toe the PC line in that area. And these are
people knowledgeable and proud of their heritage, a heritage that transcends
anything that might ever have appeared in the entertainment media. They do not
vest the guardianship of their sensibilities to such as Disney.

TORSTEN, FINALLY:

Thanks for the rundown on upcoming Gladstones. Is this a regular item that you
post?

It surprised me to find myself reading my own deathless ad copy for CBG #1055
in Digest 219. I often find myself writing the CBG ads at the last minute, so
I hope they mostly make sense...mostly.

AND THAT...

...is more than enough (and probably way too much) from me for now.

Gary