Keskustelujen arkisto

Whoo! Lotsa things to handle, here at the outset. I'm trying at the moment to
answer a few things as best I can remember at the moment, so this ain't
gospel...

"Plumber's Helper" was deemed, during the original Gladstone run, as rather
long, with not much of a story, as such, more like a series of amusing
vignettes. We simply proceeded then to other things more suitable for comic
books.

"Foreign Legion" was about to be published, with brand new covers by Daan
Jippes (future associate, if not boss, of Bob Foster), when Disney pulled our
plug on that one. Time may have changed perceptions a bit at Disney since, but
my impression so far is that "Foreign Legion" would be even less acceptable
now (considering the "Aladdin" video fiasco). Ah, well...

IN relation to that, and not brought up in this venue yet, is our recent
publications of a series of Al Taliaferro strips that originally included the
first-ever appearance of Huey, Dewey and Louie in the comic strip. Many have
written to us concerning this heinous omission, and our answer is...Yes,
folks, that strip is on the Disney Index! It was deemed too violent in its
reference to the nephews blowing up their father. No one will be seeing that
strip in an American Disney comic until a true seachange in social attitudes
occurs.

MATTIAS:
Your request for some of Don's material is something we'd be glad to do. The
problem is, you'll have to have an incredible amount of patience. We're in a
constant state of scrambling to just get done what has to be done in a day,
and simply can't get to such things on anything other than an infrequent and
haphazard basis. Drop us a line in the regular paper/envelope/stamp mail,
addressed to either myself or John, and we'll do our best.

ANDREW:
Sorry you're hacked off about our repeating Gottfredson. That material lost us
the most money of any when we originally published it, so we're trying to
lessen the economic blow by giving them a fresh presentation in our new line.
WE also feel that much of this material deserves a second chance with the
vastly improved production values we can now give it, especially with
coloring.

Frankly, guys, Mickey is comic book poison in America. The only reason we're
trying to keep him in there is because we don't want him to be forgotten. As
far as the American comic book market at large seems to feel about it (since
the early '80s, anyway), no tears would be shed if he was. The very small but
very loyal Mickey comic book following out there is suffering greatly right
now, and I'm very much afraid that is not going to change in the near future.
I envy Marv Wolfman and the recent new Mickey material he's been able to
publish in Disney Adventures; seems as though every time Gladstone tries to
get a new Mickey idea going, Disney blows its nose on it...

If anyone out there can shed any light on why Disney so likes to beat up on
American Disney comic books-even those their own comic book division tried to
produce-please do!

Well, before I go spinning off on any other tirades, I shall close.

Thanks for the opportunity to vent...
GARY

This is your nowadays rather quiet list administrator speaking. (I
remember when I wrote it.... )
I think the last time I wrote was when I asked Don about "his"
birthdates for the ducks. Thanks for providing them!

JWW emblem
~~~~~~~~~~
Don also wrote about the JWW emblem of the Junior Woodchucks that
> Barks has made more use of the JWW emblem in the paintings of the
> past 20 years than he ever did in the comics. I don't think he used
> the initial-emblem more than a half-dozen times in the old comics...
> maybe not even that many.

Last year when I made some very authentic JWW medals with my brother
to distribute during a JWW summer camp I searched through my comics
looking for close-ups of the emblem and other JWW trivia. There is a
good one in WDC 132 (1:6, meaning page 1, panel 6), and one on a
building in WDC 158 (7:2). It's also seen for instance in WDC 282 and
both on a flag and a cap in "Christmas for Shacktown". The emblem is
also shown on the front cover of The Junior Woodchucks' Guidebook in
the picture of it by Barks where it is seen most clearly (I think),
i.e., in "The Seven Cities of Cibola" (14:2). That front cover is
also shown (with emblem) in "The Golden Fleecing", although not as
clearly. (But it doesn't look the same for instance in US 5 (15:4)!)

Well, I don't know if anyone cared about that, but I happened to still
have the notes I made then. But here is a question on the JWW emblem.
I know that I have had some book, probably in maths but I'm not sure,
with an emblem of the publishing house somewhat resembling the JWW
emblem. I can't find such a book in my bookcase right now, and I
don't remember what publisher it was. Does this ring a bell to
anyone? Ultimately I'd like to know if the resemblance is just by
chance or if there were some Barks fans who did this on purpose.

Paul Murry
~~~~~~~~~~
David wrote:
> Sounds like Rota may like some elements of Murry's art, but not his
> scripts... which actually WEREN'T his most of the time, but Carl
> Fallberg's and Don Christiansen's

Right. So I don't find his praising Murry strange at all, even though
he doesn't like the stories. (And besides, Murry has done other stuff
than the Mouse for Disney.) "Most of the time"? As I've heard it
Murry *never* wrote anything.

Well, that was just two unrelated items. There are many other things
I planned to comment on, but that'll have to wait. (BTW, I liked your
subject line "Gus Goose and Stefan Dios (no connexion!)", Mattias. :-)
-- "
Per Starback, Uppsala, Sweden. email: starback at minsk.docs.uu.se
"Life is but a gamble! Let flipism chart your ramble!"

Dear Folks,

Several things to bring up today.

RoC's Barks quotes on Rosa and Van Horn
=======================================

"I do like the works of both of them. William's art resembles
me of my own art, while Rosa stuffs the panels full of details -
sometimes even too much. By the way, I am now making a plot for a new
Scrooge adventure, and the art will be done by William."

This sounds like Barks as *I* spoke to him, that one time in
1987... he told me he liked your work, Don, but that it was too "busy"
in places. As I have mentioned before, I believe that Barks' recent
treatment of and/or publicized reactions to you were induced by other
hands.

The JWW emblem
==============

Don, this was MISSING in the recent "Lillehammer" story! It
was particularly noticeable in the close-ups of the Woodchuck flag --
that flag had a big, blank, white circle on it! Was the letterer
supposed to have added it, or was this your accidental omission? I
particularly note how you drew it in yourself in "War of the Wendigo,"
as in the German printing -- tho' the Woodchucks were referred to
throughout as the Fahnlein Feiselschweif -- the JWW emblem was very
noticeable!
While I'm at it with "Lillehammer," let me say that I have
seen NO good copies of this comic. Every single one I've seen has had
very bad mismatches of color to ink lines, the result being that the
color of Don's bill starts about 2 mm in from the left outline, and
stops about 2 mm to the right of the right outline, and so forth... In
fact, so many of the colors were so far off that I think that it was
the BLACK ink that was misprinted. All the Gladstone copies AND all
the Marvel copies I've seen have been this way.

Disney's double-standard: Rosa vs. the others
==============================================

"Disney has told Gladstone (or warned them?) that they allow
many things in my stories that they'd never allow in any other Disney
tales since they feel that my stories are aimed more at older readers
anyway. This is nice to know, and it shows an encouraging attitude on
Disney's part that they are willing to understand and allow the idea
that Disney comic books can and should have different sorts of stories
for different sorts of readers, and not just shoot at the lowest
common denominator."

Before you praise this, Don, please let me remind you...

A) It hasn't changed any minds about "War of the Wendigo,"
has it? Or is there something I don't know?
B) It's thanks to this that there is not a Floyd Gottfredson
Library. Someone refuses to believe that Gottfredson fans are as
mature as Barks fans and that they can handle stories that aren't
allowed in the regular comics. If you have special leverage, Don, or feel
you do, maybe you, if anyone, could convince Disney to allow a
Gottfredson Library. Many at Gladstone have told me that it would
still happen if permission was granted...

Gary Leach on "The Foreign Legion"
==================================

""Foreign Legion" was about to be published, with brand new
covers by Daan Jippes (future associate, if not boss, of Bob Foster),
when Disney pulled our plug on that one. Time may have changed
perceptions a bit at Disney since, but my impression so far is that
"Foreign Legion" would be even less acceptable now."

I have a list made up of changes that could be made in the
TEXT of "Foreign Legion" which might very well make it acceptable to
Disney. Someone (Dave Seidman?? I dunno) at Disney once told me that
it was things in the text of the story, not the art (which could be
retouched) that banned this one.

The debut strip for HD&L
========================

"was deemed too violent in its reference to the nephews
blowing up their father. No one will be seeing that strip in an
American Disney comic until a true seachange in social attitudes
occurs."

Are you absolutely adverse to censoring Della's letter: "[The
nephews are sent to you] while their father is in the hospital. A
giant firecracker exploded under his chair... the little darlings are
so playful" ---> "...while their father is away visiting a famous
pyschiatrist. He hasn't been feeling very well lately... the little
darlings are so playful."

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

If you're willing to make the change, perhaps the strip could
be stuck into the 60th Anniversary special.

And when Gary Gabner responds to the angry letters about that
strip not appearing, he might refer those readers to your old WDC&S
522, in which Gladstone did print it.

Gladstone's position on re-reprinting Mickey
============================================

"That material lost us the most money of any when we
originally published it, so we're trying to lessen the economic blow
by giving them a fresh presentation in our new line."

Gladstone's MM comic had the highest cost of ANY of its
comics, and this was entirely due to *reformatting* the stories.
What's the problem with printing new stories in sideways format? None
of those extra costs -- only the recoloring cost, just as with the
stories Gladstone's now RE-using.
Running things sideways was the way *Disney* avoided
unfeasible costs when they used Gottfredson stories. I was told this
many times.

Furthermore, If Gladstone was able to arrange to have their
comics sold in supermarkets at checkout counters -- just as DISNEY
ADVENTURES is -- not only would everything sell about three times as
well, but a MM title would be feasible, even as the least successful
of the line. I'm not just recommending this method to save MM, but to
help the Ducks too... I'm sure it would!

But my guess is that there's a good explanation as to why the
Gladstones AREN'T sold like DISNEY ADVENTURES. Is there something
going on I just don't know?

Yours,

David Gerstein
<David.A.Gerstein at Williams.edu>

Dear Folks,

Don Rosa told Gary to "please ask John Clark why Gladstone
can't print that strip with the first appearance of HD&L by simply
omitting the letter's written reference to them blowing up their
father."

After this request, much like my own, Don added, "Only
kidding -- you can answer that yourself. Please tell John Clark
that you're going to answer it yourself."

What is the implication here, Don? Are you saying that you're
joking about changing the strip because you'd rather not see it than
see it slightly changed? Of course I'd rather see the original
version! So would every duck fan... but if the only way it'll see
print is censored, I'd rather see it that way than not at all!

What can Gary answer himself? Do you mean to say that the
question of what Disney will say is easily answerable, because even IF
the strip is changed, Disney won't allow it?

Perhaps if the strip was accompanied by an article describing
how the nephews evolved, it would be permitted. That's what was done
in DD 281 when Disney at first refused to permit the strip where
Donald smashed a window. The article pointed out how the early Donald
was more audacious.

Perhaps special permission would get Disney to let it be put
uncut in the _60th birthday special_, if nowhere else. In such a
historic issue, the transgression with the firecracker could perhaps
slip by.

It certainly did in 1987's WDC&S 522. (How many of you forgot
about that one?)

DAVID:
The JWW emblem -- well, yes, at one time I'd sneak it into the
circle on the hats of the Woodchucks in spots where it isn't too
noticeable... but, of course, I "officially" leave it off since it's
just gibberish to any market but the tiny American one. I didn't even
try to sneak it into the corners of the "GotLL" story since a key part
of the story hinged on it and I think I just felt better leaving it out
entirely. I've added it to the art in the important spots for Gladstone,
and John says he might just be nice enough to stick it on all the other
hats and books. I HOPE he'll at least stick it on the hats and books on
the cover.

And though you seem to know an extraordinary amount of stuff
about things Disney, you do sometimes ask questions I would think you
could see the obvious answer to: why doesn't Gladstone arrange to have
its comics placed at grocery store check out lines. Don't you realize
the HUGE amount of money that each publisher must pay for each space for
each magazine you see in that tiny area across the country??? I think
they literally need to BUY the racks or something, and pay rent for the
space in one trillion (some odd?) stores across North America. One
reason I suspected (and still suspect) that Disney is still publishing
its DIGEST is that it has SOOOOOO much money invested in that rack space
that it is treating the DIGEST as an advertisement of its TV shows and
continues to publish it at a loss and because they may well have a
contract to that shelf space that they can't get out of. And consider
the physical size of the DIGEST compared to Gladstone's 6 comics! I
wager there isn't a publisher in America that could afford to even place
TWO magazines in those check out lanes, much less six. So, you can save
time hoping for that possible marketing idea.

PER:
No, I THANK you for that list of JWW emblem appearances! It's
one thing I've never kept notes of myself. I referred back to all your
cited appearances to make sure of something I already knew: my version
of the emblem is DIFFERENT from Barks'. I prefer to use a version where
the two "W"s are distinct and not merged with the "J"; I think Barks
made it thus in one painting somewhere, and I figured that gave me leave
to choose between the two styles. Or maybe he didn't -- anyway, I make
my "JWW" (or "WJW") emblem differently -- had you noticed?

Nikolaus Andresen (a German or Dane in the UK?) wrote:

> I'm very new to this mailing-list and call
> myself a biiiiig Barks and Gottfredson admirer.
> I'm also a proud owner of the CBL,
> and I want to know of you:
>
> Which stories in the CBL are not drawn by Barks,
> i.e. are redrawings or manipulated in any other way.

We discussed this, before you were on this list.
(This is unavoidable and shouldn't stop you from asking this kind of questions!)
I think I'll dig up the discussion and mail it to you. We made a list last
year. It included "Darkest Africa", which has been redrawn entirely.

> who knows where to get their originals?

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?

--Harry.

On 17 Jan 1994, Don Rosa wrote:
> DAVID:
> The JWW emblem -- well, yes, at one time I'd sneak it into the
> circle on the hats of the Woodchucks in spots where it isn't too
> noticeable... but, of course, I "officially" leave it off since it's
> just gibberish to any market but the tiny American one. I didn't even

Couldn't the non-JWW countries just redraw the emblem? Or just blot it
out with a colored circle? Or is allowing publishers to edit part of the
art too slippery a slope?

And what do the Boy Scouts use as an international emblem? Is there one,
or does each country have it's own logo? Perhaps the Duckburg branch of
the JWW could have a specific logo, and for whatever country Duckburg is
located in (whichever the reader chooses), that is the JWW logo.

I haven't seen the GotLL story yet, so I can't comment on that aspect.

> try to sneak it into the corners of the "GotLL" story since a key part
> of the story hinged on it and I think I just felt better leaving it out
> entirely. I've added it to the art in the important spots for Gladstone,
> and John says he might just be nice enough to stick it on all the other
> hats and books. I HOPE he'll at least stick it on the hats and books on
> the cover.
>
> And though you seem to know an extraordinary amount of stuff
> about things Disney, you do sometimes ask questions I would think you
> could see the obvious answer to: why doesn't Gladstone arrange to have
> its comics placed at grocery store check out lines. Don't you realize
> the HUGE amount of money that each publisher must pay for each space for
> each magazine you see in that tiny area across the country??? I think
> they literally need to BUY the racks or something, and pay rent for the
> space in one trillion (some odd?) stores across North America. One
> reason I suspected (and still suspect) that Disney is still publishing
> its DIGEST is that it has SOOOOOO much money invested in that rack space
> that it is treating the DIGEST as an advertisement of its TV shows and
> continues to publish it at a loss and because they may well have a
> contract to that shelf space that they can't get out of. And consider
> the physical size of the DIGEST compared to Gladstone's 6 comics! I
> wager there isn't a publisher in America that could afford to even place
> TWO magazines in those check out lanes, much less six. So, you can save
> time hoping for that possible marketing idea.

Here's an idea. I didn't say this, so don't quote me. Whenever you go to
a grocery store or department store which has magazine racks near the
cashiers, take some copies of Gladstone comics, and leave them in the
racks, in front of other magazines. Maybe someone will pick one up.

I don't know what the sales figures are for cashier racks, but I do know
that Panini (the sticker album company) used to do this, so I don't think
it would be too difficult for Gladstone/Disney/Marvel, especially
Disney/Marvel.

Oh, Don, you lost the wager. 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.

A question: What is the strangest place you have seen a Disney comic book
for sale? Open air bazaar in Tibet? Research station in Antarctica?
Disney store in the U.S.?

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