Keskustelujen arkisto

About coins:

In American Disney comics the currency of Duckburgh is the same as it is
in the USA, Dollar and Cents. But in German Disney comics the currency of
Duckburgh is from its first mentioning on Taler and Kreuzer. So it's not
so odd that the coins are all gold and the paper money is all green. It
is only fantasy, although Taler and Kreuzer were a real currency in
older days, the 13th century, I think, but I don't know for real.
The first time I saw the money in American Disney comics I wondered about
the white coins. Now I like it more because of the variety of the
coloring and of the metal which make it more realistic. Btw. German money
has silver, copper and Messing (don't know the English name) coins.

Because of the different currency the money bin's $-sign is often changed
to an T (abreviation of Taler) in Germany. In many italian stories the
sign is changed to DD (abreviation of Dagobert Duck, German name of Uncle
$crooge) in Germany.

That all seems very odd, but it's tradition for over forty years translation.

I don't know if anyone will understand what I'm writing. My English seems
to getting worse and more misunderstandable every time.
But I hope some get the point.

Thats my two cents!

-- Gilbert

----------------------------------------------------
Gilbert Roser A Disney Maniac
TUBerlin
Germany
efferd at cs.tu-berlin.de
----------------------------------------------------

Don Rosa's "Lo$" is being published now in Italy for the first time, on a
Monthly base. October is the month of "King of Copper Hill", and I have a
question; when Rockeduck Senior takes the judge to Scrooge's place, on the
cart the Judge is reading Chapter 2 of Lo$! Is that a mistake of the
translators? Rosa seems not likely to have mixed up things this way! Maybe
the judge is reading the Autobiography of Scrooge's Uncle ("Mani Buche" is
the Italian name). Can anyone (maybe Don Rosa himself) help me solve this
doubt? Thank you.
In case Don Rosa has bothered to read up to this point, I have another
question for him. I was shocked to see (in the Don-Rosa file at the Disney
archive) that he sets Scrooge's death in 1967. Of course, that is when Barks
retired; but is there more? I mean is there a story where this happens?
And... did HD&L effectively inherit Scrooge's fortune? What are they doing
now? (By the way, does Scrooge's death in 1967 make "invalid" all subsequent
Italian stories which are clearly set in the 70's, 80's and 90's ?). Anyway,
until I get proof beyond any reasonable doubt, I still am convinced that
Scrooge is alive and well, since he drunk a lot of water from the Fountain
of Youth when nobody (not even Barks and Rosa) was seeing him.

Marco Barlotti - Dept. of Math. - Univ. of Florence - Italy
MARCOBAR at FACEC.CCE.UNIFI.IT

Hi friends! The following message is for all the comics creators on this forum.
Please note that we don't want to start this debate *here*. If you want to
talk about it, please send you messages to: fumetti at alpcom.it

-----
A Bill of Rights for Comics Creators
by Scott McCloud

Suggested Final Draft with Annotations by the Author.

For the survival and health of comics, we recognize that no single system of
commerce and no single type of agreement between creator and publisher can
or should be instituted. However, the rights and dignity of creators
everywhere are equally vital. Our rights, as we perceive them to be and
intend to preserve them are:

Bill of Rights followed by Annotations

1. The right to full ownership of what we fully create.

This means copyright and trademark. The term "fully create" is open to
debate. Siegel and Schuster fully created Superman in my view, reagardless
of how much editorial input they may have received. It was theri idea. Had
they retained ownership of Superman from the start and later hired others to
create stories for the character, such as DC Comics has, those other would
be entitled to many rights, but ownership of Jerry and Joe's characters
would not be one of them.

2. The right to full control over the creative execution of that which we
fully own.

Without this right, the first one is meaningless. What difference would my
full ownership of Zot! make if I could be forced, at a publisher's whim, to
change my characters' appearance, bring villains back from dead, to write
long crossover scenes or even just to change a little piece of dialogue on
page five, panel three, and in doung so undermine a message I may have been
working to get across for over a hundred pages! No change is so important
that it can't be discussed, but the final say over what goes into Zot! is
still in the hands of its creator and owner. Companies that take on
creator-owned properties do so at a certain risk, but when a creator trades
in his or her control over their creation for a twelve-issue contract and
some money in the bank, they do more than just risk that their message will
be distorted in the long run. They virtually guarantee it.

3. The right of approval over the reproduction and format of our cretive
property.

This is my suggested wording change. I prefer "approval over" to "full
control" in this instance because it's possible for both publisher and
creator to agree on such basic matters as size, shape, printing process and
pagination before the project is even begun. Unlike disputes over writing
and art, these are matters that can be handled at the contract stage. If,
while work is alredy proceeding, a creator or publisher wants to make change
in format, then agreement by both sides would be necessary. In the original
draft of the Bill, a thirteenth right governing advisory labels was added.
I've omitted it here, as I think this heading covers it well enough.

4. The right of approval over the methods by which our creative property is
distributed.

Again, a matter for the contract stage as I see it. This was also changed
from "full control" and reworded slightly to avoid giving the impression
that we all thought we had the right to walk into our local distributor's
warehouse and start telling people how to pack boxes. This, and all the
twelve rights, refer primarily to the creator/publisher relationship.

5. The right to free movement of ourselves and our creative property to and
from publishers.

No, this doesn't mean we have the right to breck contracts and walk whenever
we feel like it. (At least that's not my interpretation.) This simply means
that, just as comic book writers and artists have traditionally competed for
assignments from comic companies, the reverse should also be true. Creators
wishing to produce work for more than one company at a time must be free
from coercion of any kind.

6. The right to emply legal counsel in any and all business transactions.

I don't think this one needs any explanation.

7. The right to offer a proposal to mroe than one publisher at a time.

What's good for the goose is good for the gander. This operates on the same
principle as Number 5. I would add that such "multiple submissions" should
be clearly labeled as such.

8. The right to prompt payment of a fair and equitable share of profits
derived from all our creative work.

I think this is pretty self-evident.

9. The right to full and accurate accounting of any and all income and
disbursments relative to our work.

These two articles apply to all comic writers and artists, not just
creator-owners (also true of Numbers 5, 6 and 10). They arern't particularly
controversial, but they are being violated - constantly.

10. The right to prompt and complete return of our artwork in its original
condition.

Nowadays, this idea seems fairly tame, yet once this was the most radical,
inflammatory thing an artist could possibly suggest to a publisher. It will
be interesting to see how many of these other rights are taken for granted
two or three decades from now, as this one has come to be.

11. The right to full control over the licensing of our creative property.
Again, this one follows naturally from the first right. Ownership would be
meaningless without this kind of control.

12. The right to promote and the right of aproval over any and all promotion
of ourselves and our creative property.

'Nuff said.

-----
The Italian cartoonists society Anonima Fumetti would like all the collegues
to think about this Bill of Rights suggested by Scott McCloud and welcomes
all contributions to the debate. You can send your contribution to our
e-mail address: fumetti at alpcom.it and we'll send them to Scott McCloud and
talk about all this in our WEB pages: http://www.alpcom.it/fumetti/
-----
Gianfranco Goria, cartoonist and comics divulger: goria at inrete.alpcom.it
president of Anonima Fumetti - Italian cartoonists society: fumetti at alpcom.it
http://www.alpcom.it/fumetti/

ALL:

While looking in the television-guide (Veronica #42) I saw an article
of which I thought it could be interesting to read for you.

We have here in Holland the Veronica-channel. For the weekly programm
"Veronica Goes Down Under" they send their presentators to Australie
to make documentaries there. The presentators also write a little
piece about their programm in the Veronica TV-guide.

This is wat Gert Berg wrote:

"Camera-man Mark van 't Woud and I are sent to an obscure
mission. We sit in the Greyhound-bus for hours, looking for a
prince with his own empire, his own banknotes, stamps and
passports. We find him: Prince Leonard, almost seventy years old
and next to it fulltime farmer. After a quarrel with the
Australian government about a piece of land, he certified himself
independent. His ground, ten times the area of Monaco, became
seperated with fences from the rest of Australia. When the
Australian government threatened to expropiate his land, he
declared war on them. "Now it's peace again", he says. And his
only soldier at the time of our visit is at family in Sydney. His
wife, the princess, ... a kind of slatternly woman on bath-
slippers, does know our [Dutch] queen Beatrix. Not that they ever
met each other, but she *is* a kind of colleague of her. Isn't
she?"

What do you think of *this*? The idea of Scrooge to become a king of
his own land is not that unreal as we might have tought! ;-) Reading
the article I wondered what Prince Leonard would think if he reads
Don's story "King Scrooge the First"? Maybe he would also try to
get his tax back? ;-)

Would do you think of this article, Don?

Greetings,

--- Daniel

(For our Dutch members, the broadcasting of the programm will be
on Friday 27 October.)

Platic Mickey
-------------

This story was published in the Norwegian DD&Co #37 and #38.
It's written by Michael Gilbert, and drawn by Ferioli. The
Norwegian script is, as far as I know, written by Erik Horthe.

The story is 16 pages long.

I've now read the original script to the story (thanks, Michael
and Janet :) ), and I have a few comments to it. A few questions
might also have sneaked in.

First a (not very) short review of the story.

A friend of Mickey, Doc Static, has invented a chemical that can
give dead and living tissue rubbery abilities. He demostrates it
on a cat, who suddenly manages to touch Mickey's nose with his own,
from quite a distance, without moving his feets. Doc has got the
idea from a comic book, which I believe Michael did too :-)

Well, somebody has stolen a bottle of the chemical, and also the
formula. The cat, who certainly seems to enjoy being a rubber cat,
suddenly hits the last rest of the chemical, which in turn spills
over Mickey. It seems to work slower on mice than on cats, but
suddenly Mickey stretches his arms high up in the air, to catch
Minnies hat.

The Red Bat, who's the one who stole the chemical, doesn't waste
his time. He pour some of it on a tall building, which bends
over, and hit the ground with its top. This in turn causes a big
traffic cork. This was just a demonstration. He wants $10,000,000
for not using it again.

Since his companion has played with the chemical on things outside
the building where The Red Bat is, Mickey and Minnie find them.
While the Bat is away (to fetch the money), Mickey fools his
partner by stretching his own face so it looks like the Bat's, and
he and Minnie gets inside the building. The door to the room where
the chemical is, is locked. Mickey gets in through the keyhole.
He takes the bottle, and start to squeeze himself out again. The
Bat's partner is coming up the stairs. Well, Mickey can get out,
but the bottle can't, and neither can Minnie get in.
End of part one.

Mickey goes in again, use the spray on the door, and lets Minnie
in.

In the meantime, the Bat is on the mayor's office. Another
demonstration is broadcasted at the same time. This time it's the
Duckburg Airport that suddenly is quite rubbery. This makes
landing planes bump a little more than they should (this scene
reminds a little about a story by Allistair McLean, BTW. In
this story a group of terrorists put the airport of Amsterdam
under water by blowing up a dike).

Mickey and Minnie are trapped in the Bat's flat, and the Bat
comes back. Minnie hide in the kitchen, and Mickey gets another
idea from Doc's comics. The Bat and his companion enters the
flat, and suddenly the carpet on the floor becomes very lively
(and this scene reminds about a scene from Terminator 2).
Mickey then ties the crooks with his own body. Oops, the
chemical is stopping to work. Suddenly Mickey is his old
himself again, and the crooks are free. They catch Mickey, and
start looking for Minnie. Suddenly Minnie comes, followed by
the police. The Bat wonders how she could get down to the ground,
from the sixth. floor, to which Minnie answers by stretching
her arms in a quite unnatural way.

It's, IMHO, a very good story. It's the best Mickey story I've
read for quite a long time. And I can't remember having seen
this idea used before. Also Minnie is importent in the story.
Minnie has solved mysteries before, but usually by accident.

Feriolis art is also very good, though he can't draw airplanes.
There's a comic book with Mickey and Donald on the cover in a
newspaper stand, BTW.

My first impression, after having read the original script and
the Norwegian simultaneously, is that the Norwegian version is
much more children-friendly than the original script. That is,
it's a quite simple language, and it lacks the more powerful
expressions of the original scripts. Still, Feriolis art makes
the story very lively, so it still flows very well.

Also, the scientist speaks with a German accent in the original,
but speaks a perfect Norwegian in the Norwegian version.

This is an example from the first page:
(The Norwegian is retranslated to English)

Original: Mickey: Holy cow! Those rats stole your comic books?!?

Norwegian: Mickey: Oh! They stole your comic books!

There are also a few word plays that are not in the Norwegian
version.

Well, is this done just to get enough room in the bubbles, or
do the Norwegian readers want a simpler language? I can see
from the language that it's done by purpose. It's not just
translated, and coinsidentally come out that way.

Except from this toning down of the language, the translation
is very close to the original. The only exception that comes
to mind at the moment is in panel six of page two:

Original: Doc: Yah! Or maybe it takes longer to work on peoples!
Who knows?

Norwegian: Doc: I'd still like to take some tests later.

The art is also a little different from the script in this page.
In the script, the scientist is explaining how he made the chemical.
This is not in the finished story. Instead, one panel in the script
is made into a double panel in the story, and an extra panel is
put in. The dialogue from two panels in the script is put into two
panels in the story.
Other changes in the art are minor.

Back to the language, or rather the bubbles this time. The bubbles
are used in a very clever way in some panels. I don't know how
usual this is, but this is anyway the first time I've noticed it.
In some panels the dialogue is put into two small bubbles instead
of one big. This makes a natural pause in reading it, and then
creates a feeling of a bigger time-span in a single panel. This
also make the language more living, since an afterthought can be
expressed after the first expression, but before the next panel,
which could be too late to make it work.

David, if you're interested in another very good story, that I'd
like to see printed by Gladstone, the code is D93303.

Jorgen

JAMES:
The illustration that you refer to, of the Ducks standing over
$crooge's grave, was a gag done about 5 years ago for a Duck fanzine. It
wasn't meant for public consumption. But I'm getting used to people taking
stuff not meant for public consumption and making sure it's seen by eyes it
was never meant for. I guess it's an honor to be in such a position that
people like to treat me like that.
It was a simple line-drawing, not a "painted cover".
And the story "Of Ducks and Dimes and Destinies", which I did 4-5
years ago, will be jokingly treated as "chapter 0" of the "Lo$" (mocking
modern American funnybook jargon) and be printed in the issue of U$ after
chapter 12.

MARCO:
I think you may have misunderstood what the judge is reading. I had
him reading a copy of the dime-novel written by Pothole McDuck, "The Master
of the Mississippi". That was the title of the 2nd chapter of the "Lo$"...
but also in that chapter I showed that Pothole was writing that
pulp-magazine series when he retired from the river. So that's not a
mistake, UNLESS the Italian translator had the judge reading "The Life and
Times of $crooge McDuck, chapter 2". THAT would be a mistake!
Another question about that grave scene? Again, this was meant as
just a gag for that fanzine, and the purpose behind the gag was NOT just to
show $crooge being dead, but that's another matter. However, it DOES reflect
my personal view of the Duck universe. I see Duck-time as being frozen
somewhere back in the 50s, otherwise all the Duckburg characters would be
old and gray (or dead). And I like seeing Duckburg as the same town in the
same time as it existed in when I was a kid. No, there was no actual story
ever done about $crooge's death, nor should there ever be.
As for Barks' Fountain of Youth story, that might be what enabled
$crooge (in my view) to live to be 100. But remember, in that Barks story,
DRINKING from the Fountain only made you peppy. BATHING in it is what made
one young. Don't ask me to make sense of that --that's just how it was in
the story.
Some people have tried to debate me as to whether I should have my
stories take place in the 50s, or whether the new stories take place in 1995
or whenever. But it's absolutely pointless to argue about it. I do my
stories with this built-in private joke because that's the way I intend to
do them, and nothing will change that. But I don't expect any other writers
to agree (and I would be rather puzzled if they did). Other Duck stories
from other writers/artists are taking place in the present. My stories take
place in the 50s. I would feel silly thinking I was doing stories of a 130
year old character, but that's just me. It's just like this whole "Lo$"
series -- nobody is forced to like it or accept it. There's a world of
different Duck writers and Duck stories -- variety is the spice o' life. I
hope people like my stuff, but I'm never offended if they don't. (I'm more
often puzzled that so many do!)
So, yes, in my own lil' private version, I see $crooge as being long
dead by 1995.
And Marco -- will I see you next week when I visit Italy?

TODD:
Interested in pre-Columbian history, eh? We'll need to make sure (if
you so desire) that you letter this "Lost Charts of Columbus" story! (Of
course, I'd hope to make sure you letter all my stories -- I'm no fool!) And
if you like Stonehenge, I also just did a Duck adventure all about THAT as well!

ODDVAR:
I was thinking you were going to ask a question about the historical
elements of the "Columbus" story, but you're just asking about "staging" of
the action. I was very aware of the apparent short distance between the
helicopter and the bomb-site. But these funnybook panels must often be laid
out with "artistic license", particularly when one has such limited space as
I do in these overly-complex stories I force myself to do. I needed to show,
in a single tall panel, the helicopter dropping bombs and the reaction of
the people on the ground, and show both elements clearly so the reader could
see what was happening. To show it "to scale" would have rendered both
scenes so teeny-tiny that you couldn't tell what was what, which is hard
enough in reading one of my stories already, what with all that "needless
and irritating detail".
And Oddvar -- will I see you next week when I visit Norway?

DANIEL V.E.:
I don't know about that article you mention, but I imagine the
article writer got that idea from the same movie that *I* got my idea for
the "His Majesty McDuck" story. And strange that you should mention it since
I saw that movie just 2 days ago for the first time since long before I did
my $crooge story (around 1988). It's a 1946 (I believe) British movie titled
PASSPORT TO PIMLICO about a neighborhod in London that unearths a treasure
that shows that centuries ago the British crown granted a nobleman
independant title to whatever area he lived, making it the separate kingdom
of Burgundy.
And Daniel -- will I see you next week when I visit Finland? (I know
you're not in Finland, but I was looking for a reason to remind people that
I'll be there soon.)

Some follow ups from 820.

Don:

Re: "Greater than Rome"

> I can't recall exactly what the"greater than Rome" reference was to in
> regards to that whatchacllit Mexican city. But I believe it referred to its
> physical size -- it covered more area. And perhaps (with its
> pyramids) it was taller in spots?

I accept both explanations (even if you must remener Rome was built
on seven hills and did have some tall spots :-)). The actual wording
used in the trnaslation is, however, not "greater", however, more like
"mightier" og "more powerfull". I have no objections to Teotihuacan
being larger ("the ruins cover 13 square km" as Donald says). But
"more powerfull"? No. I guess it all goes to show that translators need
to study the material (e.g. historical) behind the story to make a right
translation. They may even need to read the actual text properly,
sometimes.

Re: North

The need for translators to read properly is revealed in your
explanations of what you put into the original manus ("Why should
they have necessarilly put North at the TOP of their map?"). The
Norwegian version is (retranslated...): "There is something wrong with
this map. Why has the Adena people put North on the top?" Which
gives quite a different meaning.

Re: A.D.

Yes, A.D. should be put first. Interesting, as Tommy tells, that some
monks thought of this new way of chronicling the years in A.D. 525.
However, I'm rather sure that Irish monks would not have started to use
this new way so quick (remember both the speed of travelling and the
usual conservatism of monks and scholars)! I'm even surer when your
encyclopedia explicitly says that it would take about 500 years before
this was a widely accepted way of marking the year. However, I'll try to
dig more into it next week.

Incidentially, the people starting to use this miscalculated the years,
so that the birth of Christ was put at least five years too late! In reality
we're now living in the year 2000! The next time someone comes
knocking at your door (or stopping you on the street) saying you have
to repent because the world is going to end in the year 2000, you have
something to tell!

Nevertheless, I hope chronology will never hinder those of us who
need to repent from doing that :-)

Re: Ingstad

I think some of his books are translated to English, Todd! If you ever
find any, please tell!

BTW, I do believe that most of this New England monuments have
been proven to be fakes, or put up in the 17th century by pilgrims and
other fathers. Do you have any specific examples? Another
Norwegian, Kaare Prytz, has reseached this a lot (and come up with
some suggestions of a "Medieval Stone Tower" and some "Viking
mounds"), however, he has also met a lot of resistance and seems to
me to be disproven. That's also the case with a famous "runic stone"
found late last century or early in this, however which is proven
to have been faked by a Swede or something.

Bjorn-Are

bjorn-are.davidsen at s.prosjekt98.telenor.no
**********************************************************************************
- The Weaver in the Web that he made -
**********************************************************************************