Keskustelujen arkisto

>Pete is 60 years old on 15. april (today).

I wonder why I did that... The article says "february", I was thinking
"february", and writing "april"...

Thanks to Paulo and David for explaining the 50 years' celebration in 1973.
I'm kind of glad they didn't make such a mistake, but I do think it's silly
to celebrate it with Mickey's head (or ears...). In 1978 the magazines had
a small drawing of a wrapped gift on the front cover, and the text
"Congratulations Mickey!".

Harry about a something-Haid Moe story:
>Donald drives a school bus to the countryside

I remember that story. The art is very simple, isn't it? Every time I read
a story where Donald drives a school bus, I'm reminded of that story.

>I'm currently re-reading my entire Dutch Disney collection

How many pages do you read each day? That sounds like a lot of (very
pleasant) "work".
I calculated that if I read about the size of an average weekly issue each
day, I would have to use about 13 years to read my entire collection
(provided it doesn't grow in the meantime).

>Moe has a dog in the story, but it has no name.

And no teeth either :-)

Harry mentioned the bad quality of the stories in issues from the 60s and
the early seventies. Since Hans isn't very much older than me, I wouldn't
think he was too concerned about the quality of those issues. They were
(I guess the Danish aren't very different from the Norwegian) truly bad at
that time, and the quality raised against the end of the seventies, but then
it went right down. In my opinion the worst years of the Norwegian weekly are
the years 1983-1987, 1984 being the worst. Mostly bad stories, awful colouring
(and almost no Barks at all). At that time it seemed to be more important
to make the front cover and the stickers, posters etc., which came with the
magazine, appealing to young teenagers than making the magazine interesting
to read. The stories seem almost to be just fill up for the junk that came
with it. I like stickers and posters with Disney characters, but Samantha Fox?

David:
>[...] the (Gladstone) book "Mickey Mouse in Color" (highly
>recommended).

Apropos that book -- according to the preview Nisse typed in for us, this
book is offered again. Are there 3000 _new_ issues, or are there a lot of
unsold books. If the first is the case, did they have 3000 autographs by
Gottfredson lying around? Any matter how many there is, it sounds boring
to sign 3000 (or 6000) books.

> "I'm sure glad I hate yuh! 'Cause if I didn't hate yuh, I'd have
>to like yuh! And I don't WANNA like yuh -- I hate yuh too much!"

From the Foreign legion story, isn't it?

Apropos that story. There is a story (drawn by Murry, I think) from the
mid-sixties which also involves Mickey, Black Pete and the Foreign legion
in some Arabian country. Black Pete is an officer, and Mickey and Goofy
are just soldiers. The front cover of the magazine shows Black Pete standing
in front of Mickey and Goofy. All of them in uniform. Goofy is holding his
gun upside down. It's years since I read the story, so I don't remember it
very clear. Is this story banned too? Maybe there isn't any reason to
reprint it anyway.

Jorgen

Date: 22-Feb-1995 02:07pm EST
From: DeBlieck, August
ADEBLIEC
Dept: STUDENT
Tel No:

TO: Remote INTERNET Address ( _IN%DISNEY-COMICS at MINSK.DOCS.UU.SE )

Subject: Donald & Mickey stories

DAVID: I went back last night and reread some parts of the various
Jaime Diaz Studios Goofy and Mickey stories running currently in
Donald and Mickey. So now I can prepare an adequate response to
your thoughtful letter to me about them.

Turns out I do agree with you on most parts. I'll try to find some
place to disagree with you, though, just so this isn't completely
conciliatory. ;)

First, a little background: My idea of high comedy is a movie like
Airplane!, The Naked Gun, or Police Academy. (I also like the Marx
Brothers, but they don't completely fit the mold here.) Slapstick
humor supplemented with background gags and puns to make you groan
at are funny in my book. On that account, these stories work for me.
(Upon rereading, I found that Goofy King Midas was my favorite, far
and away. The other two, so far, haven't lived up to it's zaniness.)

Your first point is that the characters don't seem to be completely in
character. Quit honestly, I don't know a whole hell of a lot of what
their character is supposed to be. I only read a couple of Disney's
ill-fated Goofy Adventures comics, and have read precious few Mickey
Mouse stories. The predominant vision in my mind of them comes from
Disney cartoons, such as the Prince and the Pauper. I think Mickey
stays in _that_ character usually. If you are looking for Mickey to
fit the brave, fearless character mold he does in the comic book
stories (such as the current King of Medioka), you're not going to
find that here, granted. He more likely fits the movie-star Mickey
persona. The cute little chuckle. Getting in over his head. "Gosh,
wow" kind of stuff. Goofy comes out of character a lot. He isn't
Goofy enough. He drifts in and out of it - though he _is_ sometimes
in character. (A pathetic defense, I know.)

Your second contention is that they shouldn't be presented as serials.
I agree, but with circumstances as they are today, I don't think that
is going to change much. Gladstone can only put out 3 comics a month.
This is really the only place for them. Quite honestly, I don't think
they should take up space in Donald & Mickey with Carl Barks stories.
He's in all the rest. Having his stories in Donald Duck or Uncle Scrooge
or WDC&S is tradition. Putting his stories in D&M, while good for
those of us who haven't read them all yet, isn't terribly necessary.
(But I'll save that for another debate.) Yes, the stories are long.
They were produced to fit a certain format which doesn't exist anymore.
This is the only way left, short of Gladstone producing them in collected
volumes in the same way they do the Carl Barks series. I think they'd be
best left for double-sized issues, as the first was. That seemed to work
best.

Your third problem is that they don't belong in D&M. Well, I've
addressed that already, but I do agree with you in that I wish they'd
print more Mickey stories. I'd like to read more so I can get a better
grip on his character - as well as be entertained in the process.
My suggestion would be to remove the CB stories, and put in some Mickey
stories in that slot, as outlined above.

As you yourself admit, the stories are enjoyable. I have to believe
that not all Gladstone readers are as knowledgeable as you, or even _I_.
(albeit to a lesser extent.) If these stories are good, and people buy
the book because they like them,
despite the fact that they don't know what they're missing, they don't
care. Gladstone still has to sell comics. (I'm not saying I have any
proof of this, nor have I heard any anecdotal evidence. It is mere
supposition on my part.)

You say that Mickey's "limited exposure is too valuable to spend on
... stories that lack... character development." Uhm, weren't the
characters developed already, way back when? It's the same argument
with the Star Trek comics, as an example. How can they do character
development, or change the status quo too much? The characters have
been defined - use that definition. I don't think anyone can really
"develop" the character of Mickey or Donald or Scrooge anymore. That's
been done. What's left is what we have to work with. You can use
certain parts of the character to propel a story. You can restate the
definition of the character. But you can't develop him anymore. You
can only change him. (There's a scary thought.) But maybe my
definition of "character development" is a bit off. Please tell me if
this is so.

My final concession: Yes, if 50% of the letter they receive are
negative, mayhaps they should rethink their strategy. I'm not saying
forget the stories altogether, just rethink how they are used. Too bad
they can't make another bi-monthly title. Maybe a mini-series for
these? I don't know. It's not my decision.

There you have it. And you'll be happy to note it only took me two
weeks to respond to your letter as opposed to the two months it took
me to get to Jorgen's and Don's. :) I'm getting there.

-Augie De Blieck Jr.

Harry Fluks wrote:
------------------

>> [...] Barks' "Frozen Gold", as this was _his_ first successful
>> longer story

> You mean you don't like "The Mummy's Ring", or you think it wasn't
> successful? Why not?

I like the story a lot, and obviously it was at major hit at the
time. Artistically, however, the story clearly shows that Barks' had
not yet mastered the comic book format: like his first story, it looks
like a compilation of still frames from a cartoon; there is little
variation in the poses and facial expressions, making the drawings
stiff, awkward, and even repulsive at times. What later made Barks so
great was his perfect control over subtle detail and expressions,
allowing him to convey the emotions of his charaters very accurately.
I have always thought that one of the most amazing transformations in
Barks' work occurred between "Mummy's Ring" and "Frozen Gold": while
many of the later Disney comic artists might have written a "MR",
very few, if any, went on to write a story of the quality of "Frozen
Gold". Not only did Barks do this in just 2 years, but, much more
impressively/incredibly, he did it from scratch with nothing but his
own talent to guide him. To illustrate my point, consider Donald's
expression after eating a bad (tuna?) sandwich in "MR", and compare it
with his subtle yet very sympathetic expression after he is blinded by
snow in "FG". Clearly, there is a a remarkable qualitative difference
between these two stories, which is why I think it would be unfair to
Barks to call "Mummy's Ring" a success.

- Hans

JORGEN:
"[Mickey Mouse in Color] is offered again. Are there 3000 _new_
issues, or are there a lot of unsold books?"
It's the latter situation. Actually, what happened was that
when the original limited edition was made, distributors bought a
sizable chunk of the edition at wholesale, but held back many of the
copies to sell later on, so that they could make the limited edition
last for a while. Due to the cost of the book, there's a continued
demand, but the stock is still lasting a while... that's all. The
book wasn't a failure or anything. Gladstone got rid of all THEIR
copies. ;-)
Poor Gottfredson sure must have been bored by signing all 3000
copies. I don't know how my hero passed on, so maybe the poor fellow
was bored to death by the tedious job.
Gottfredson signed the parchment pages in 1984, a while before
he died. Only later were they cut to size and inserted in the
finished books. Production of MMiC began in 1982, but was halted
when Gladstone decided to wait a few years and tie it to MM's 60th
birthday... at least I believe that's the case.
The Murry story about the Foreign Legion is titled "The Lost
Legion" and is from 1953. This is one of my FAVORITE Murry stories.
Not written by Don Christiansen or Carl Fallberg (Becattini doesn't
know who wrote it). Its writer went back to the Gottfredson Mouse --
Mickey sings "The Sheik of Araby" at one point. I love it!
Presented as a 3-parter, WDC&S 167-169.

> - The Big Bad Wolf (D93298, 6 pages).
"The Magic Rope Trick" -- it was in the British one this week.
> - Donald Duck (H9111, 4 pages).
It's a HDL story in Britain, titled "To Be Honest." The art
looks like Michel Nadorp to me, but I don't know for sure. Those big
tufts of hair on the ducks' heads often indicate his work, though.
That's a Disney-Burbank styling, and he worked for them for a while.
> - Goofy (D92304, 7 pages). Art by Esteban.
Actually, "How to Ski" (that's the title) is NOT drawn by
Esteban. The art looks more like whoever drew that "Art Attack"
story about nine weeks ago (the one where Minnie's painting disappears
and it's actually her birthday... etc.) If you compare Horace to
Estaban's Horace in "Knights and Bolts," you'll see the difference
right away. (For one thing, his tail is grey in "How to Ski," while
Estaban properly makes it black.) Some of the gags in the story are
based on a 1941 Goofy cartoon titled "The Art of Skiing." The author
here obviously had that how-to cartoon in mind and tried to name the
story after it -- but misremembered its name, it would appear.

AUGIE:
"My suggestion would be to remove the CB stories, and put in
some Mickey stories in that slot, as outlined above." That would
make DM into MM, and while I would of course love a Mickey title, I
think it would be disastrous financially to use these Goofy stories
there in ANY portion of the comic! They really do sell very poorly
when fans come to the comic looking for MM starring vehicles.
If Mickey got his title back and I was somehow to be the
editor, I'd put a mixture of Gottfredson and Scarpa into it. Then
I'd put new Mickey stories into DM (Egmont and non-Scarpa Italian)
and a mixture of Murry and Bill Wright serials in WDC&S. Then I'd
issue the Goofy Classics stories as annual specials, complete to the
issue. If Gladstone ever gets to add that one-shot series, I think
this is the best idea for them (and that's what you suggested too,
Augie!)
> You say that Mickey's "limited exposure is too valuable to spend on
> ... stories that lack... character development." Uhm, weren't the
> characters developed already, way back when?
Ooooops. I meant character EXPOSITION, in which Mickey's
character is revealed more than it is in these Goofy stories.
Not that I don't think Mickey can't be developed further. I
have my own ideas about how to utilize the FG Mickey in comic-book
stories, and I think you'll be very pleased with my results. My MM
tends to mix the impetuousness of 1931 with the tongue-in-cheek
attitude of 1941 and the thoughtfulness of 1938 -- or at least, he
SHOULD be mixing those things, if I can write the stories right. I'm
using a patchwork Mouse, if you will.
Thanks for answering me so thoughtfully, Augie! It's great to
have these discussions (and I may have more to contribute over the
next couple of days).
Also: A very thoughtful letter about dealing with Disney's
policies. I personally think that the boycott idea could blow
Gladstone straight out of the water. Disney won't care why
Gladstone's comics aren't selling -- they'll only take the license to
the characters and give it to Marvel when it's time to renew in 1996.
Boycotting Disney comics in the States would only hurt Gladstone.

DAVE RAWSON: Sorry I haven't had a chance to write back to
you. I will. But in the meantime, please give me your mailing
address -- I'd like to send you a copy of "Toot Suite," since you
said you'd never seen the artwork. I bought an extra British one for
you. (It's about time I paid you back for sending ME copies of "Tour
de Jour" long before DDA 29 printed it.)

Back tomorrow, gang.
David Gerstein
<9475609 at arran.sms.ed.ac.uk>

Fluks wrote:
> resist reading them (and I don't _want_ to resist that). 1975 is one of
> the best years in Dutch DD Weekly. The most Barks stories ever, they started

In the Norwegian DD weekly, the definitive Barks peak was in 1976, when
44 out of 52 issues contained something by Barks.

>1984 also happens to be the Dutch year with the least Barks stories (ever).

This happened in 1983 up here, with only 2 Barks issues.

I did make a statistic of this once, if anyone would be interested. It shows
how many issues each year had Barks-stories.

-jonC

PAULO:
> Muito obrigado, Elon!!!!! Do you have a database for those
>Brazilian stories?
I don't, I'm sorry. Just have a bunch of 60's magazines. Perhaps we
could get something started. Let's exchange email

ALL:
There's been talk about 'Mickey Mouse in Color'. Pardon my ignorance, I
don't know this book. (I got another one of the same name, but not by
Gladstone). Is it still available? Where should I order it from?
Gladstone? Resellers? Please help. Thanks!

Elon

unsubscibe KEROGE THE MALKAVIAN
^v^
^v^ /\ /^\_____/^\ /\
/ / \ I \\ // I / \ \ ^v^
/ / / / \I \ / I/ \ \ \ \
/ / / / / /\I .\ /. I/\ \ \ \ \ \
\/\/\/\/\/ I II I \/\/\/\/\/
I ______ I
^v^ \ ` ' / ^v^
\______/
\/
^v^ ^v^

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
@ I'd like to continue chatting but i'm having an old @
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%^v^%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
@ friend for dinner! - Dr. Hannibal Lecter @
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@