I feel the urge to add my two cents worth on the cover issue.
Any Australian or New Zealand members of the list (are there
any?)would remember the early WG Publications issues that we used to get
here for so many years. They had the same covers as Hearts of the Yukon,
i.e. printed on newsprint like the inside pages. Holding this comic brought
back memories of my childhood. Personally I don't mind it.
DON:
I hate to make a negative comment about anything you've done,
especially given that I am a big fan, but when I was comparing the new cover
to the one on LO$ part 7 I showed it to my girl-friend and asked her what
she thought of the kangaroos. She said "Oh, is that what they are?" She is
an Australian though and they are very protective of their cultural icons.
Incidentally, I'm a Kiwi, I'm only living in Australia.
Greg
Author
Topic: 199507
(198 messages)
Greg Wright
WD Giant # 1 cover
Message 106 -
1995-07-14 at 02:39:47
Knut Hunstad
Defending Venus...
Message 107 -
1995-07-14 at 11:19:27
Hi,
I just wanted to say that I don't agree on the "Interplanetary postman"
beeing Barks' worst story! I think it's quite funny. Admittedly it's quite
negligant of simple economics, but that wouldn't be the first time...
Can't really say what my candidate for the title would be (never really
thought about it), but I'll keep it in mind...
Knut Hunstad
Trondheim, Norway
"I hope some day you'll get the pleasure of having children. And paying
someone else to raise them!"
I just wanted to say that I don't agree on the "Interplanetary postman"
beeing Barks' worst story! I think it's quite funny. Admittedly it's quite
negligant of simple economics, but that wouldn't be the first time...
Can't really say what my candidate for the title would be (never really
thought about it), but I'll keep it in mind...
Knut Hunstad
Trondheim, Norway
"I hope some day you'll get the pleasure of having children. And paying
someone else to raise them!"
Mikko Henri Juhani Aittola
WDG#1
Message 108 -
1995-07-14 at 13:14:08
Hi folks!
I just finished reading the first issue of Walt Disney Giant, the
youngest addition to Galdstone-line of publications. The first story
is Don Rosa's latest (And I really mean LATEST - coded 'D 95044A' the
story sees its first public appearance in AMERICAN comic book, instead of
some scandinavian mag. Usually the 'new' stories in Gladstone's books are
about two years old.) called '$CROOGE McDUCK in HEARTS of the YUKON'. The
story gets us back to $crooge's past, to Dawson in January 1898. All
24-pages are PACKED with adventure, gags and puns with a little romantic
drama thrown in.
Ahh, I really loved the story. As my local comic-book retailer said
when I picked up the book: 'How can Rosa top himself everytime?'
Brilliant! Thanks Don for QUALITY work. (People, just buy it.)
The cover-paper didn't bother me. I'm used to it. (Finnish Donald
Duck is in same format, but with only 32 pages.) But I'm really disappointed
that we must decide between glossy-cover-bad-interior and
poor-cover-good-interior -paper quality. I would vote for glossy cover
with good interior paper-quality, whatever the price.
Don, how did Gladstone get this story so soon from Egmont? Was this only
a special one-of-a-kind deal or is there plans to continue like this in
the future?
The issue also features 4-page article by Geoffrey Blum, called 'Dawson:
Imagination's Doorway' it adds to the Rosa's adventure fairly well.
THOUGH, I have to disagree with his view to Rosa's take on $crooge in
Dawson. Blum writes: 'Rosa comes at these characters from the other end
of timeline. For him young $crooge is a man of the Nineties - the 1990s,
that is: tough, street smart, and battling alone against a hostile
world.' --- 'We have moved into the realm of the modern superhero comic.'
Well, I *GUESS* Geoffrey Blum isn't very familiar
with IMAGE's latest superhero offerings...
Second story is 'Three Little Pigs in The Mounties' (FC 218) by Chase
Craig and Gil Turner. A quite nice 12-pager all in all.
My opinion about 'continued in the next issue...'-stories / WDC&S 601-----> :
I'm very much used to it and like it. BUT our scandinavian Donald Duck
is a WEEKLY-book. I think it's WAY too long time to wait two months for
the 2nd chapter of the story. I can manage a week...
/Mikko
I just finished reading the first issue of Walt Disney Giant, the
youngest addition to Galdstone-line of publications. The first story
is Don Rosa's latest (And I really mean LATEST - coded 'D 95044A' the
story sees its first public appearance in AMERICAN comic book, instead of
some scandinavian mag. Usually the 'new' stories in Gladstone's books are
about two years old.) called '$CROOGE McDUCK in HEARTS of the YUKON'. The
story gets us back to $crooge's past, to Dawson in January 1898. All
24-pages are PACKED with adventure, gags and puns with a little romantic
drama thrown in.
Ahh, I really loved the story. As my local comic-book retailer said
when I picked up the book: 'How can Rosa top himself everytime?'
Brilliant! Thanks Don for QUALITY work. (People, just buy it.)
The cover-paper didn't bother me. I'm used to it. (Finnish Donald
Duck is in same format, but with only 32 pages.) But I'm really disappointed
that we must decide between glossy-cover-bad-interior and
poor-cover-good-interior -paper quality. I would vote for glossy cover
with good interior paper-quality, whatever the price.
Don, how did Gladstone get this story so soon from Egmont? Was this only
a special one-of-a-kind deal or is there plans to continue like this in
the future?
The issue also features 4-page article by Geoffrey Blum, called 'Dawson:
Imagination's Doorway' it adds to the Rosa's adventure fairly well.
THOUGH, I have to disagree with his view to Rosa's take on $crooge in
Dawson. Blum writes: 'Rosa comes at these characters from the other end
of timeline. For him young $crooge is a man of the Nineties - the 1990s,
that is: tough, street smart, and battling alone against a hostile
world.' --- 'We have moved into the realm of the modern superhero comic.'
Well, I *GUESS* Geoffrey Blum isn't very familiar
with IMAGE's latest superhero offerings...
Second story is 'Three Little Pigs in The Mounties' (FC 218) by Chase
Craig and Gil Turner. A quite nice 12-pager all in all.
My opinion about 'continued in the next issue...'-stories / WDC&S 601-----> :
I'm very much used to it and like it. BUT our scandinavian Donald Duck
is a WEEKLY-book. I think it's WAY too long time to wait two months for
the 2nd chapter of the story. I can manage a week...
/Mikko
Per Starback
Carl Barks Library reprinted
Message 109 -
1995-07-14 at 14:20:00
Daniel:
> As you might know, I posted a message from Jakob Soderbaum in the
> last week of June in which he tells a bit about it. But he only told
> about the Westfield catalog, that they cost about $ 140 each and that
> they started with the first three parts.
I guess he got that information from the NAFS(k) newsletter where I
wrote it. And I got the information from this list, so it's a piece
of information that seems to go around. It was Mark Mayerson who
first mentioned a reprinting of CBL here, citing a rec.arts.disney
article by Brent Swanson (unfortunately not a member of this list).
I wrote Brent about it and asked why he thought that, and then he told
me that it said so in the that Westfield June catalog. I don't know
of any other source for this, so I'd be happy if someone has the
possibility to examine this.
Daniel again, when I mentioned that I'd like to get the four sets I lack:
> Is it that impossible to get those "old" sets? Aren't there any
> comic-book shops in Sweden still having them on the shelves? If there
> are no changes in the reprints, wouldn't it be more fun to have the
> old original CBL complete?
Original, shmoriginal -- I want the comics! Actually I do like to
have some original Barks comics, even though I haven't bought many of
them, but CBL is just reprints anyway, so I wouldn't care about what
edition it is, as long as it's the same contents. I just don't want
to spend too much money on it, and all the sets I've seen on the
comic-book shop shelves have been far too expensive for me.
But now Mark says that the first three sets have been for sale from
Bud Plant all the time. For what kind of prices?
-- "
Per Starback, Uppsala, Sweden. email: starback at minsk.docs.uu.se
"Life is but a gamble! Let flipism chart your ramble!"
> As you might know, I posted a message from Jakob Soderbaum in the
> last week of June in which he tells a bit about it. But he only told
> about the Westfield catalog, that they cost about $ 140 each and that
> they started with the first three parts.
I guess he got that information from the NAFS(k) newsletter where I
wrote it. And I got the information from this list, so it's a piece
of information that seems to go around. It was Mark Mayerson who
first mentioned a reprinting of CBL here, citing a rec.arts.disney
article by Brent Swanson (unfortunately not a member of this list).
I wrote Brent about it and asked why he thought that, and then he told
me that it said so in the that Westfield June catalog. I don't know
of any other source for this, so I'd be happy if someone has the
possibility to examine this.
Daniel again, when I mentioned that I'd like to get the four sets I lack:
> Is it that impossible to get those "old" sets? Aren't there any
> comic-book shops in Sweden still having them on the shelves? If there
> are no changes in the reprints, wouldn't it be more fun to have the
> old original CBL complete?
Original, shmoriginal -- I want the comics! Actually I do like to
have some original Barks comics, even though I haven't bought many of
them, but CBL is just reprints anyway, so I wouldn't care about what
edition it is, as long as it's the same contents. I just don't want
to spend too much money on it, and all the sets I've seen on the
comic-book shop shelves have been far too expensive for me.
But now Mark says that the first three sets have been for sale from
Bud Plant all the time. For what kind of prices?
-- "
Per Starback, Uppsala, Sweden. email: starback at minsk.docs.uu.se
"Life is but a gamble! Let flipism chart your ramble!"
MR CHRIS L REIGHLEY
UNSUBSCRIBE
Message 110 -
1995-07-14 at 14:31:30
UNSUBSCRIBE CHRIS REIGHLEY
Per Starback
Architext wants to archive this mailing list
Message 111 -
1995-07-14 at 14:39:18
This is your list administrator speaking. I've gotten this question
about the list that I don't know what to do about, so I thought I'd
ask around if you on the list have any views about this:
> Subject: Architext would like to archive your mailing list
>
> Hi,
>
> Architext is an exciting new media navigation company. We're
> developing a service designed to give users powerful ways to search
> and browse the content available over the internet.
>
> We're calling our service Bullseye!, and we'd like to include your
> mailing list(s) in the content that we index and archive. Other
> content will include web pages, newsgroups and thousands of editorial
> reviews. Basic searching and browsing will be free for all users; we
> also plan to offer profiling services for a nominal fee.
>
> Would it be acceptable for Architext to subscribe to your list(s) as a
> regular user and to keep archives of the list(s) content? This content
> will always be freely searchable by any user of the internet.
>
> In exchange for your permission to index your list(s), we'd like to
> offer you profiling services free of charge for one year. That way you
> will be notified about new web pages and news articles that match your
> profile. So you can stay abreast of new developments and make sure you
> have the most current information available as it comes out. Don't be
> the last on your block to get profiling from Bullseye!
>
> Architext was recently voted one of the top 25 cool technology
> companies by Fortune magazine (July 10 issue) and was featured on the
> cover of this March's Red Herring magazine. For more information on
> Architext, check out http://www.atext.com.
>
> Bullseye! will be opening soon (around August 15) and we hope that we
> can include your list(s) in this exciting service.
>
> [...]
-- "
Per Starback, Uppsala, Sweden. email: starback at minsk.docs.uu.se
"Life is but a gamble! Let flipism chart your ramble!"
about the list that I don't know what to do about, so I thought I'd
ask around if you on the list have any views about this:
> Subject: Architext would like to archive your mailing list
>
> Hi,
>
> Architext is an exciting new media navigation company. We're
> developing a service designed to give users powerful ways to search
> and browse the content available over the internet.
>
> We're calling our service Bullseye!, and we'd like to include your
> mailing list(s) in the content that we index and archive. Other
> content will include web pages, newsgroups and thousands of editorial
> reviews. Basic searching and browsing will be free for all users; we
> also plan to offer profiling services for a nominal fee.
>
> Would it be acceptable for Architext to subscribe to your list(s) as a
> regular user and to keep archives of the list(s) content? This content
> will always be freely searchable by any user of the internet.
>
> In exchange for your permission to index your list(s), we'd like to
> offer you profiling services free of charge for one year. That way you
> will be notified about new web pages and news articles that match your
> profile. So you can stay abreast of new developments and make sure you
> have the most current information available as it comes out. Don't be
> the last on your block to get profiling from Bullseye!
>
> Architext was recently voted one of the top 25 cool technology
> companies by Fortune magazine (July 10 issue) and was featured on the
> cover of this March's Red Herring magazine. For more information on
> Architext, check out http://www.atext.com.
>
> Bullseye! will be opening soon (around August 15) and we hope that we
> can include your list(s) in this exciting service.
>
> [...]
-- "
Per Starback, Uppsala, Sweden. email: starback at minsk.docs.uu.se
"Life is but a gamble! Let flipism chart your ramble!"
Don Rosa
Disney-comics digest #722.
Message 112 -
1995-07-14 at 15:34:00
>WES:
If you're gonna be a $crooge collector, you'll need to brace
yourself for American licensees and even people at Disney (as in your
experience) not having any idea who $crooge McDuck is. I just grudgingly
bought a $crooge desk clock that had an appealing shape of a stack of coins
with the top coin looking like a round vault door, which when swung back
reveals a clock with a picture of $crooge; it would be a decent piece, but
it's not "the" $crooge, it's a shot from Disney's "$crooge McDuck and Money"
cartoon where it's not so much $crooge as a reshaped Ludwig Von Drake. There
used to be a "collectibles" (ecch) catalogue that showed up in my mailbox
which, especially during the "DuckTales" and "Mickey's Xmas Carol" scare a
few years ago, would often have bad $crooge items for sale. But the problem
that irked me was that each $crooge item was described in the text as
"Donald Duck as Uncle $crooge" -- this was either ignorance on the part of
the catalogue company, or their fear that buyers in search of cute Disney
characters for their collections would not recognize who this obscure
"$crooge McDuck" was, and were seeking to persuade the Disney-o-philes to
buy the things.
MIKE:
The Finnish issues are billing "ODaDaD" as "fresh" Rosa art? They
have no way of knowing I did that story 4 years ago.
I don't have a copy of a Euro printing of that tale where I sit now,
so I'm not sure what I may have drawn wrong about Magica's chest. I usually
put extra work into doing Magica's chest. Also Glittering Goldie's. Nudge,
nudge, say no more, say no more.
Neither am I sure what you mean about the candle. I seem to recall
that I had the candle burning down a set distance page by page, regardless
of the amount of time that was supposed to be passing -- I was using the
candle more as a visual gimmick than a real measurement of time passed. But
Byron said I should shorten the candle more than normal at some point. Or
after 4 years, I may be remembering that story backwards... that Byron
suggested I eliminate the one "leap" in the amount of candle meltation. I
can't recall. Does that sound like the problem you're referring to?
I always pictured $crooge, no matter how young, as having white
hair. I see ALL male Ducks as having white hair. It never even dawned on me
that colorists, just trying to do their colorful best, would color $crooge's
hair brown or something, otherwise I would have put a margin-note pleading
that they not do so. It jars me seeing young $crooge with colored hair, but
maybe that's just because I wasn't expecting it -- probably the casual
readers don't care either way?
Why didn't $crooge's father, in "Lo$" part 1, see Magica? Especially
since I did that story immediately AFTER just doing "ODaDaD"? Because I want
to imagine that once Magica set history back the way it was supposed to be,
then her involvement in it sort of never happened. I don't like the idea
that Magica put that coin in young $crooge's hand, but it made for a nifty
story. One can say anything one wants to when dealing with the silly paradox
of time travel -- it will work however you want it to for your own
convenience. So Fergus didn't see Magica put the coin into $crooge's hand
because she didn't. The ditchdigger did.
Are you asking me for advice on how to do a comic script? You'd be
better off checking with someone who knows how to deal with lots of editors
and has made a study of how professionals do this sort of thing. I'm not a
writer who is describing a story to a art team -- I don't need to describe
to myself what I already know. But I don't see how you could go far wrong if
you do your scripts as mock-up comic pages as I do. You can do scribbles or
stick-figures to show the lay-outs or action or expressions you have in
mind... and you don't need to be able to draw to do that much.
I don't know how to tell you to get over the feeling that you
shouldn't do a story because you don't think it could ever measure up to
what somebody else had done. People always asked me how I had the guts to
take on Barks' characters. This puzzled me since I never considered I was
going where angels feared to tred. I never thought I'd ever do popular
work... I just wanted to realize my dream of writing and drawing Duck
stories, whether anyone liked them or not. I'm still amazed that my stuff is
so popular -- if I went into it all EXPECTING or INTENDING it to be popular,
I guess that WOULD have been frightening. Failure never worried me... maybe
that's the difference? I still know that, despite my current popularity,
I'll never be 1/100th as much a legend as Barks, so I can never be disappointed.
But if you need to judge yourself by what you see already in print,
don't look at Barks, look at the normal Egmont stuff. We only get the very
BEST Egmont stories here in Gladstones in America -- some of it is nice, but
lots of it is pretty dreadful. It's hard to imagine how dreadful some of the
stuff is that we never even see over here. You KNOW you can do better than
that stuff, right? Go ahead then!
If you're gonna be a $crooge collector, you'll need to brace
yourself for American licensees and even people at Disney (as in your
experience) not having any idea who $crooge McDuck is. I just grudgingly
bought a $crooge desk clock that had an appealing shape of a stack of coins
with the top coin looking like a round vault door, which when swung back
reveals a clock with a picture of $crooge; it would be a decent piece, but
it's not "the" $crooge, it's a shot from Disney's "$crooge McDuck and Money"
cartoon where it's not so much $crooge as a reshaped Ludwig Von Drake. There
used to be a "collectibles" (ecch) catalogue that showed up in my mailbox
which, especially during the "DuckTales" and "Mickey's Xmas Carol" scare a
few years ago, would often have bad $crooge items for sale. But the problem
that irked me was that each $crooge item was described in the text as
"Donald Duck as Uncle $crooge" -- this was either ignorance on the part of
the catalogue company, or their fear that buyers in search of cute Disney
characters for their collections would not recognize who this obscure
"$crooge McDuck" was, and were seeking to persuade the Disney-o-philes to
buy the things.
MIKE:
The Finnish issues are billing "ODaDaD" as "fresh" Rosa art? They
have no way of knowing I did that story 4 years ago.
I don't have a copy of a Euro printing of that tale where I sit now,
so I'm not sure what I may have drawn wrong about Magica's chest. I usually
put extra work into doing Magica's chest. Also Glittering Goldie's. Nudge,
nudge, say no more, say no more.
Neither am I sure what you mean about the candle. I seem to recall
that I had the candle burning down a set distance page by page, regardless
of the amount of time that was supposed to be passing -- I was using the
candle more as a visual gimmick than a real measurement of time passed. But
Byron said I should shorten the candle more than normal at some point. Or
after 4 years, I may be remembering that story backwards... that Byron
suggested I eliminate the one "leap" in the amount of candle meltation. I
can't recall. Does that sound like the problem you're referring to?
I always pictured $crooge, no matter how young, as having white
hair. I see ALL male Ducks as having white hair. It never even dawned on me
that colorists, just trying to do their colorful best, would color $crooge's
hair brown or something, otherwise I would have put a margin-note pleading
that they not do so. It jars me seeing young $crooge with colored hair, but
maybe that's just because I wasn't expecting it -- probably the casual
readers don't care either way?
Why didn't $crooge's father, in "Lo$" part 1, see Magica? Especially
since I did that story immediately AFTER just doing "ODaDaD"? Because I want
to imagine that once Magica set history back the way it was supposed to be,
then her involvement in it sort of never happened. I don't like the idea
that Magica put that coin in young $crooge's hand, but it made for a nifty
story. One can say anything one wants to when dealing with the silly paradox
of time travel -- it will work however you want it to for your own
convenience. So Fergus didn't see Magica put the coin into $crooge's hand
because she didn't. The ditchdigger did.
Are you asking me for advice on how to do a comic script? You'd be
better off checking with someone who knows how to deal with lots of editors
and has made a study of how professionals do this sort of thing. I'm not a
writer who is describing a story to a art team -- I don't need to describe
to myself what I already know. But I don't see how you could go far wrong if
you do your scripts as mock-up comic pages as I do. You can do scribbles or
stick-figures to show the lay-outs or action or expressions you have in
mind... and you don't need to be able to draw to do that much.
I don't know how to tell you to get over the feeling that you
shouldn't do a story because you don't think it could ever measure up to
what somebody else had done. People always asked me how I had the guts to
take on Barks' characters. This puzzled me since I never considered I was
going where angels feared to tred. I never thought I'd ever do popular
work... I just wanted to realize my dream of writing and drawing Duck
stories, whether anyone liked them or not. I'm still amazed that my stuff is
so popular -- if I went into it all EXPECTING or INTENDING it to be popular,
I guess that WOULD have been frightening. Failure never worried me... maybe
that's the difference? I still know that, despite my current popularity,
I'll never be 1/100th as much a legend as Barks, so I can never be disappointed.
But if you need to judge yourself by what you see already in print,
don't look at Barks, look at the normal Egmont stuff. We only get the very
BEST Egmont stories here in Gladstones in America -- some of it is nice, but
lots of it is pretty dreadful. It's hard to imagine how dreadful some of the
stuff is that we never even see over here. You KNOW you can do better than
that stuff, right? Go ahead then!
Wilmer Rivers
Magica's chest
Message 113 -
1995-07-14 at 16:43:20
Don Rosa writes:
> I'm not sure what I may have drawn wrong about Magica's chest. I usually
> put extra work into doing Magica's chest. Also Glittering Goldie's. Nudge,
> nudge, say no more, say no more.
To say nothing of Miss Daisy in "The Duck Who Never Was". Maybe instead
of scrimping on the covers for WD Giant, Gladstone really should add a
centerfold!
Wilmer Rivers
P.S.: Before reading the innocent typo in one of the earlier messages
today, I never realized how close "Gladstone" is to "gall stone"...
> I'm not sure what I may have drawn wrong about Magica's chest. I usually
> put extra work into doing Magica's chest. Also Glittering Goldie's. Nudge,
> nudge, say no more, say no more.
To say nothing of Miss Daisy in "The Duck Who Never Was". Maybe instead
of scrimping on the covers for WD Giant, Gladstone really should add a
centerfold!
Wilmer Rivers
P.S.: Before reading the innocent typo in one of the earlier messages
today, I never realized how close "Gladstone" is to "gall stone"...
Mike Pohjola
Disney-comics digest #722.
Message 114 -
1995-07-14 at 23:19:44
DANIEL:
>Welkom in deze fraaie Disney-club! (But let's talk further in
"Welcome to this ?????? Disney-club"? What does 'fraaie' mean?
And I don't even speak Dutch!
>Hmm, I don't think I can agree with that. Writing "fictional" stories
>doesn't mean you also can write *bad* stories. I agree that everything
RIght. Many people seem to confuse the words "super-natural" and
"illogical" these days. Just because anything can happen, doesn't mean that
it shouldn't have a logical explanation. A girl from my school class wrote
a fictional essay about a "House of Horrors". A cut from the story: "In the
room she saw only a made bed and a small table next to it. And on the bed
was an apple. When she looked at the apple it begun to age and rot noticably.
It's peel dried and inside the apple came worms." And so on. I made a notice
that the story was rather illogical, because the apple should've been on the
table rather than on the bed (there were many other small details that bugged
me). And teacher turned at me and said: "Mikko! This story was supposed to
be fictious! Didn't you understand that? I can't believe you saying that!
You're the one in this class always making stories with magic and little
elves!" There is nothing supernatural about having an apple on the bed! If it
had been on the table and then rotten, that would've been all different! In
my fictious stories things are either very logical or completely absurdly
super-natural! That's the way it should be. No sailors making statues out
of wood in a desert island in logical stories!
HARRY:
>I agree that "Horsing around" is not a very good story. But the "Message for
>Venus" story is much worse, for instance.
Umm... What was "Message for Venus" like? Is it the one with giant
people living there and the ducks move the big Earth guy there too?
>I don't like the Beagle Boys having personalities! In the old Barks stories,
>they are very much alike.
The hell with Barks! (I didn't mean it) Barks wasn't an individualist.
I am. I think they should have personalities. I find it very disturbing even
seeing two brothers, one four and the other one six years old and both having
clothes that look exactly the same! And some grandmas come there and say:
"Ohhh... So cute!" I hated it when they did that to me! And anyway, I think
Barks gave (or tried to give) the Beagleboys some personalities: He had a one
who was very fond of prunes. And in an other story all the BB have different
skills and education.
Thanks for the English words. And sorry if I lost my temper there, but
I _really_ think everyone is different.
"Ook welkom namens mij"? Be welcome XXXXXX of mine?
WES:
If you want, I could mail you a Scrooge piggy-bank that has Scrooge
sitting angrily on a treasure-chest. It's an advertisement for a bank and
thus free.
--
Mike - The Finnish Trekkie
>Welkom in deze fraaie Disney-club! (But let's talk further in
"Welcome to this ?????? Disney-club"? What does 'fraaie' mean?
And I don't even speak Dutch!
>Hmm, I don't think I can agree with that. Writing "fictional" stories
>doesn't mean you also can write *bad* stories. I agree that everything
RIght. Many people seem to confuse the words "super-natural" and
"illogical" these days. Just because anything can happen, doesn't mean that
it shouldn't have a logical explanation. A girl from my school class wrote
a fictional essay about a "House of Horrors". A cut from the story: "In the
room she saw only a made bed and a small table next to it. And on the bed
was an apple. When she looked at the apple it begun to age and rot noticably.
It's peel dried and inside the apple came worms." And so on. I made a notice
that the story was rather illogical, because the apple should've been on the
table rather than on the bed (there were many other small details that bugged
me). And teacher turned at me and said: "Mikko! This story was supposed to
be fictious! Didn't you understand that? I can't believe you saying that!
You're the one in this class always making stories with magic and little
elves!" There is nothing supernatural about having an apple on the bed! If it
had been on the table and then rotten, that would've been all different! In
my fictious stories things are either very logical or completely absurdly
super-natural! That's the way it should be. No sailors making statues out
of wood in a desert island in logical stories!
HARRY:
>I agree that "Horsing around" is not a very good story. But the "Message for
>Venus" story is much worse, for instance.
Umm... What was "Message for Venus" like? Is it the one with giant
people living there and the ducks move the big Earth guy there too?
>I don't like the Beagle Boys having personalities! In the old Barks stories,
>they are very much alike.
The hell with Barks! (I didn't mean it) Barks wasn't an individualist.
I am. I think they should have personalities. I find it very disturbing even
seeing two brothers, one four and the other one six years old and both having
clothes that look exactly the same! And some grandmas come there and say:
"Ohhh... So cute!" I hated it when they did that to me! And anyway, I think
Barks gave (or tried to give) the Beagleboys some personalities: He had a one
who was very fond of prunes. And in an other story all the BB have different
skills and education.
Thanks for the English words. And sorry if I lost my temper there, but
I _really_ think everyone is different.
"Ook welkom namens mij"? Be welcome XXXXXX of mine?
WES:
If you want, I could mail you a Scrooge piggy-bank that has Scrooge
sitting angrily on a treasure-chest. It's an advertisement for a bank and
thus free.
--
Mike - The Finnish Trekkie
Arthur_de_Wolf
Am I repeating myself ?!?!?!?
Message 115 -
1995-07-15 at 08:55:55
Hi,
yesterday I sent a message, from which I'm not sure it came through.
Actually I'm kind of a newcomer to all of this Internet-bussiness,
and I believe I did something wrong when I sent the message yesterday.
Last time, I got my own message back. Does that mean that you always
get your own message back, because you're on the list? Can someone help
me with that one. I sure didn't get my message back yesterday!
Can someone also tell me if my message was sent correctly yesterday?
If it _DID_ get through to the list, I'm probably repeating myself now,
so sorry for that.
Anyway, in my letter, I wrote that I'd like to thank Dwight for his
explanation on why the American comics are released so many months in
advance, and also Harry and Daniel for their advice on the comicbook-
stores, here in Holland. I'll check them out.
DANIEL:
> That is where I was waiting for: Another Dutch member! How old are
> you? I'm 21 years old, still being the youngest Dutch member?
Well, I think I have to disappoint you. You're no longer the youngest
Dutch member. I'm getting 19 years old next month.
> Also the Dutch ones? I sure don't agree about last few years,
> I think they now mainly contain weak stories.
I agree. That's why I prefer the American comics lately.
> Hmm, I don't think I can agree with that. Writing "fictional"
> stories doesn't mean you also can write *bad* stories.
Well, I guess you're right.
> PS. Do you have the Carl Barks Library?
No. Can you tell me more about it?
--Art.
yesterday I sent a message, from which I'm not sure it came through.
Actually I'm kind of a newcomer to all of this Internet-bussiness,
and I believe I did something wrong when I sent the message yesterday.
Last time, I got my own message back. Does that mean that you always
get your own message back, because you're on the list? Can someone help
me with that one. I sure didn't get my message back yesterday!
Can someone also tell me if my message was sent correctly yesterday?
If it _DID_ get through to the list, I'm probably repeating myself now,
so sorry for that.
Anyway, in my letter, I wrote that I'd like to thank Dwight for his
explanation on why the American comics are released so many months in
advance, and also Harry and Daniel for their advice on the comicbook-
stores, here in Holland. I'll check them out.
DANIEL:
> That is where I was waiting for: Another Dutch member! How old are
> you? I'm 21 years old, still being the youngest Dutch member?
Well, I think I have to disappoint you. You're no longer the youngest
Dutch member. I'm getting 19 years old next month.
> Also the Dutch ones? I sure don't agree about last few years,
> I think they now mainly contain weak stories.
I agree. That's why I prefer the American comics lately.
> Hmm, I don't think I can agree with that. Writing "fictional"
> stories doesn't mean you also can write *bad* stories.
Well, I guess you're right.
> PS. Do you have the Carl Barks Library?
No. Can you tell me more about it?
--Art.
Mark Mayerson
Carl Barks Library
Message 116 -
1995-07-15 at 21:17:52
To answer Per, and others who have shown an interest, here's what I know
to be currently available from the Carl Barks Library.
Bud Plant's Summer 1995 catalogue lists
Vol 1 - Four Colors - U.S. $120
Vol 2 - Four Colors and Donald Ducks - U.S. $120
Vol 3 - Uncle Scrooge 1-20 - U.S. $120
Vol 6 - Duck Family miscellanea - U.S. $130 - Limited Supply
Vol 8 - Comics and Stories 95-166, Signed by Barks and numbered of 750
U.S. $170
The 'U.S.' above refers to United States currency, not Uncle $crooge.
Bud Plant Comic Art
P.O. Box 1689,
Grass Valley, CA 95945-1689
USA
(916) 273-2166 - Monday to Friday, 9-5 Pacific Time
Fax: (916) 273-0915 - 24 hours.
I'm not connected with Plant in any way, but I've ordered from him for years
and can recommend his services very highly. He takes MasterCard and Visa.
I can't find my latest flyer from Bear Mountain Enterprises, but he was
offering used CBL volumes for U.S. $75. I know that he had Vol. 3, but I
can't remember what else he had available.
If anybody else knows of a supplier with CBL volumes available, I'd
certainly appreciate hearing about it.
___________________________________________________________________
Mark Mayerson Catapult Productions
Internet: mayerson at sidefx.com Toronto, Ontario, Canada
(416) 504-9876
to be currently available from the Carl Barks Library.
Bud Plant's Summer 1995 catalogue lists
Vol 1 - Four Colors - U.S. $120
Vol 2 - Four Colors and Donald Ducks - U.S. $120
Vol 3 - Uncle Scrooge 1-20 - U.S. $120
Vol 6 - Duck Family miscellanea - U.S. $130 - Limited Supply
Vol 8 - Comics and Stories 95-166, Signed by Barks and numbered of 750
U.S. $170
The 'U.S.' above refers to United States currency, not Uncle $crooge.
Bud Plant Comic Art
P.O. Box 1689,
Grass Valley, CA 95945-1689
USA
(916) 273-2166 - Monday to Friday, 9-5 Pacific Time
Fax: (916) 273-0915 - 24 hours.
I'm not connected with Plant in any way, but I've ordered from him for years
and can recommend his services very highly. He takes MasterCard and Visa.
I can't find my latest flyer from Bear Mountain Enterprises, but he was
offering used CBL volumes for U.S. $75. I know that he had Vol. 3, but I
can't remember what else he had available.
If anybody else knows of a supplier with CBL volumes available, I'd
certainly appreciate hearing about it.
___________________________________________________________________
Mark Mayerson Catapult Productions
Internet: mayerson at sidefx.com Toronto, Ontario, Canada
(416) 504-9876
Cdoberman
Disney Mounties
Message 117 -
1995-07-15 at 21:42:02
Hi:
Earlier this week, I heard on National Public Radio a story that the Canadian
Mounties had sold Disney Co. the exclusive rights to the Mounties' Image and
likeness. It seems the mounties were tired of depictions such as those in TV
programs like "Due South," i.e., goodie-goodie goofs. The Mounties believed
that no one could control how an image is depicted like Disney. How sweetly
ironic that in the very same week, "Scrooge McDuck of the Yukon" hits the
stands and, while the Mounties depicted therein are noble of character, they
are also the bafoons of the story. Thank you Don Rosa and Gladstone for your
terrific timing. Would this story be printed as is a year from now? I
wonder if Disney is embarrassed at all :-) Don, this story features your best
art to date, IMHO.
A side note: While I requested that my local comic store special order WDG1
for me, I noticed they had not ordered any additional issues for their
shelves. I'll ask them why. I wonder if the cheap cover, which dispite the
paper still looks terrific, has the dealers at all concerned.
Earlier this week, I heard on National Public Radio a story that the Canadian
Mounties had sold Disney Co. the exclusive rights to the Mounties' Image and
likeness. It seems the mounties were tired of depictions such as those in TV
programs like "Due South," i.e., goodie-goodie goofs. The Mounties believed
that no one could control how an image is depicted like Disney. How sweetly
ironic that in the very same week, "Scrooge McDuck of the Yukon" hits the
stands and, while the Mounties depicted therein are noble of character, they
are also the bafoons of the story. Thank you Don Rosa and Gladstone for your
terrific timing. Would this story be printed as is a year from now? I
wonder if Disney is embarrassed at all :-) Don, this story features your best
art to date, IMHO.
A side note: While I requested that my local comic store special order WDG1
for me, I noticed they had not ordered any additional issues for their
shelves. I'll ask them why. I wonder if the cheap cover, which dispite the
paper still looks terrific, has the dealers at all concerned.
Cdoberman
Am I repeating myself ?!?!?!?
Message 118 -
1995-07-15 at 22:25:02
Art:Does that mean that you always
get your own message back, because you're on the list? Can someone help
me with that one. I sure didn't get my message back yesterday!
Your right. When you send a message you get it back because you're on the
group's distribution list, and no, I don't think your previous message got
through so you aren't repeating yourself.
Wes
get your own message back, because you're on the list? Can someone help
me with that one. I sure didn't get my message back yesterday!
Your right. When you send a message you get it back because you're on the
group's distribution list, and no, I don't think your previous message got
through so you aren't repeating yourself.
Wes
Philip Weetman
Collective personality
Message 119 -
1995-07-16 at 01:31:12
>
> >> I don't like the Beagle Boys having personalities! In the old
> >> Barks stories, they are very much alike.
>
> > I think they should have personalities. (...) And anyway, I think
> > Barks gave (or tried to give) the Beagleboys some personalities: He
> > had a one who was very fond of prunes. And in an other story all
> > the BB have different skills and education.
>
> Yeah, I agree that Barks gave them some kind of personality. But I
> think some recent (Danish) stories make them too "stereotypical" (is
> that the right word?). Now you have a hungry one, a smart one, etc. I
> don't think they're very "human" that way.
>
well , I'm new here (greetings from Canada) .
I agree with the above , I'd rather see one good collective
personality than three cliches . Three cliches might be good enough for
Ducktales but not in any of the 'serious' disney comics . On the other
hand , if you have three GOOD characters , then that's excellent !
my humble opinion
Philip Weetman
> >> I don't like the Beagle Boys having personalities! In the old
> >> Barks stories, they are very much alike.
>
> > I think they should have personalities. (...) And anyway, I think
> > Barks gave (or tried to give) the Beagleboys some personalities: He
> > had a one who was very fond of prunes. And in an other story all
> > the BB have different skills and education.
>
> Yeah, I agree that Barks gave them some kind of personality. But I
> think some recent (Danish) stories make them too "stereotypical" (is
> that the right word?). Now you have a hungry one, a smart one, etc. I
> don't think they're very "human" that way.
>
well , I'm new here (greetings from Canada) .
I agree with the above , I'd rather see one good collective
personality than three cliches . Three cliches might be good enough for
Ducktales but not in any of the 'serious' disney comics . On the other
hand , if you have three GOOD characters , then that's excellent !
my humble opinion
Philip Weetman
Bob Wright
No subject
Message 120 -
1995-07-16 at 05:45:31
On 11-JUL-1995 14:52:11.4 ccardoza said to ARCHIMEDES
>I am sorry if you found my signature disturbing. However, you
>misinterpretted it. It is an actual quote from the soundtrack of
>Disney's "Pocahontas." First of all I do not push aything much less
>religion.
>\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
>California State University, Hayward ACCOUNTING
>Colette Cardoza
>ccardoza at s1.csuhayward.edu
>I'm Not Crazy!...............................I'm Unique!
>////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Colette,
My apologies. You're right, I did not know the line in your
signature was a quote. Perhaps you should use quotation marks.
"Pocahontas", BTW, is Disney's most religious film to date. It reeks of
new age and Hindu themes. If you liked the movie, does that mean you share
it's religious views?
{ Bob Wright }
{ archimedes at delphi.com }
>I am sorry if you found my signature disturbing. However, you
>misinterpretted it. It is an actual quote from the soundtrack of
>Disney's "Pocahontas." First of all I do not push aything much less
>religion.
>\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
>California State University, Hayward ACCOUNTING
>Colette Cardoza
>ccardoza at s1.csuhayward.edu
>I'm Not Crazy!...............................I'm Unique!
>////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Colette,
My apologies. You're right, I did not know the line in your
signature was a quote. Perhaps you should use quotation marks.
"Pocahontas", BTW, is Disney's most religious film to date. It reeks of
new age and Hindu themes. If you liked the movie, does that mean you share
it's religious views?
{ Bob Wright }
{ archimedes at delphi.com }