this doesn't belong here but i was wondering If anyone has a relgion
paper I can borrow!
Author
Topic: 199610
(312 messages)
Procm
Disney comics Digest V96 #236
Message 286 -
1996-10-29 at 01:53:51
Don Rosa
Disney comics Digest V96 #236
Message 287 -
1996-10-29 at 09:14:54
BYRON:
Well, I'm glad you don't pay me by the gallon of ink since I'd now, after 9
years of Ducks, be only 1/4 of the way to my first paycheck. When I finish
my current 50th Anniversary $crooge story I will have used, since I did "The
Son of the Sun" in 1987, just about exactly ONE QUART of ink. The bottle I
bought in 1987 is just about dry -- close enough that I think I'll pour out
the remainder as being "too old" for safe use. So it would take me close to
40 years to use one gallon of ink!
As difficult as everyone knows it is for us Disney artists to either obtain
our own art, much less sell it, I've therefore been wondering about this
empty ink bottle and what to do with it. I think I'll have a lil' plaque
made that says "the first 10 years of my Duck stories came out of this
bottle" and sign it and donate it to some charity auction or something. Or
sell it at Sotheby's for $10,000! Or $10. Or $1?
RICH:
Ah -- I thought maybe that's who Wanda Waddle was. That was the problem when
I was using that Chalker book ("An Informal Biography of Scrooge McDuck")
for double-checking facts when I did my "Lo$". It's a GREAT book, but
Chalker starts off by saying that he considers only Barks stories as
canonical when dealing with $crooge, then he goes on to treat EVERYTHING
that appeared in the first 70 issues of UNCLE $CROOGE as if it was ALL by
Barks, even though I'm certain that he knew it obviously wasn't. So Wanda
Waddle was a character in one of those many non-Barks stories in one of
those issues... and I choose to ignore her, as Chalker should have. It's
difficult to believe Chalker's book for this reason -- every footnote needs
to be double-checked to see when he's sticking to his stated intentions and
when he's not.
As for Emil Eagle, I might consider using a good non-Barks character in a
story, but I can't bring myself to use a character named Emil "Eagle", since
I know that in Duck comics eagles fly around and build nests in trees. I
allow myself to use waterfowl, dog-people, pig-people and whatever Gyro is
(I think a cockatoo... that's clearly not a chicken-beak)... but no
eagle-people. This is the odd viewpoint that reading Barks comics and not
"funny-animal" comics all my life has given me. A non-Barks fan might ask me
if I do stories about talking Ducks and pigs and dogs, and I'd proudly
answer "Yes! Certainly!" But then they might ask if I also do stories about
talking mice and chickens and eagles, and I'd say "What? Good gosh, grow up!
What a silly idea!"
--------------------------------
End of Disney comics Digest V96 Issue #237
******************************************
Well, I'm glad you don't pay me by the gallon of ink since I'd now, after 9
years of Ducks, be only 1/4 of the way to my first paycheck. When I finish
my current 50th Anniversary $crooge story I will have used, since I did "The
Son of the Sun" in 1987, just about exactly ONE QUART of ink. The bottle I
bought in 1987 is just about dry -- close enough that I think I'll pour out
the remainder as being "too old" for safe use. So it would take me close to
40 years to use one gallon of ink!
As difficult as everyone knows it is for us Disney artists to either obtain
our own art, much less sell it, I've therefore been wondering about this
empty ink bottle and what to do with it. I think I'll have a lil' plaque
made that says "the first 10 years of my Duck stories came out of this
bottle" and sign it and donate it to some charity auction or something. Or
sell it at Sotheby's for $10,000! Or $10. Or $1?
RICH:
Ah -- I thought maybe that's who Wanda Waddle was. That was the problem when
I was using that Chalker book ("An Informal Biography of Scrooge McDuck")
for double-checking facts when I did my "Lo$". It's a GREAT book, but
Chalker starts off by saying that he considers only Barks stories as
canonical when dealing with $crooge, then he goes on to treat EVERYTHING
that appeared in the first 70 issues of UNCLE $CROOGE as if it was ALL by
Barks, even though I'm certain that he knew it obviously wasn't. So Wanda
Waddle was a character in one of those many non-Barks stories in one of
those issues... and I choose to ignore her, as Chalker should have. It's
difficult to believe Chalker's book for this reason -- every footnote needs
to be double-checked to see when he's sticking to his stated intentions and
when he's not.
As for Emil Eagle, I might consider using a good non-Barks character in a
story, but I can't bring myself to use a character named Emil "Eagle", since
I know that in Duck comics eagles fly around and build nests in trees. I
allow myself to use waterfowl, dog-people, pig-people and whatever Gyro is
(I think a cockatoo... that's clearly not a chicken-beak)... but no
eagle-people. This is the odd viewpoint that reading Barks comics and not
"funny-animal" comics all my life has given me. A non-Barks fan might ask me
if I do stories about talking Ducks and pigs and dogs, and I'd proudly
answer "Yes! Certainly!" But then they might ask if I also do stories about
talking mice and chickens and eagles, and I'd say "What? Good gosh, grow up!
What a silly idea!"
--------------------------------
End of Disney comics Digest V96 Issue #237
******************************************
Gerstein
Funny Animal Quandary
Message 288 -
1996-10-29 at 17:13:18
DON:
Weren't some of the lawyers and barristers in the Barks "Heirloom
Watch" story eagle-people? Barks used moose-people (the Clan McElk seen
briefly in "Hound of the Whiskervilles"), cat-people (Snake-Eyes McViper in
WDC&S 108), rat-people (various villains), elephant-people ("The Beauty
Business," one of the last ten-pagers), monkey-people (WDC&S 63), and so
on...
So even if they're less frequent than fowl, dogs, and pigs, other
animals DO get humanized in the Duck canon.... whether or not us two, or
any others, decide to use them. So what separates the kind of characters
in the Duck Universe and "mature" Mouse Universe from "funny animals"?
I draw the line where an animal's claim to fame is an exaggerated
physical characteristic (like a trunk) which makes the creature impossible
to depict in poses that parallel a human being's. There's actually a very
early European (Italian?) story where Donald is paired with an
octopus-person). Nope. Nor would I ever use an elephant character.
For me, "funny animal" implies your garden-variety DC zoomorph: a
comic-book character who retains some animal traits (like the Three
Mousketeers being mouse-sized and living in a hole). Such a character
often has one or all of: (A) an obnoxious attitude, (B) a speech
impediment, (C) wild mannerisms, (D) self-conscious "screwiness".
So... Donald Duck isn't a real "funny animal," because he's too
realistically portrayed as a human being for most of the above to hold
true. Same goes for Mickey, Goofy (most of the time), etc.
Gus and Jaq, Chip 'n' Dale, are "funny animals". Same goes for
Ellsworth (VERY DC with his ability to fly). Same for Zeke Wolf and the
"Song of the South" characters, although the way they're depicted makes
them more human and sympathetic than most.
Li'l Bad Wolf is essentially a "mature Mouse-universe type" who's
stuck with a father who's a funny-animal "type", hence the crucial
conflicts of their series of stories. Weird, eh?
At the very beginning of the Mickey strip, the animals chosen to be
humanized as background players are dogs, pigs, ducks, chickens, rabbits,
cats, rats, mice, cows, giraffes, and goats. The giraffes, ducks, and
rabbits vanish in 1932, the cows, chickens and goats around 1935, the cats
around 1940. The interesting thing is that these "extinctions" leave
certain characters, such as Clarabelle and Pete, as the isolated members of
their species left in their societies. Donald in the Mickey universe is
indeed an anomaly, popping up two years after other ducks cease to be shown
in the strip.
Aside from one or two of his relatives (shown in isolated stories),
I think Horace Horsecollar is the ONLY humanized horse ever shown in these
comics. Even at the very beginning (1930) he's virtually the only one!
David Gerstein
"Have you ever heard a dog talk?" (Mickey to Goofy, 1936)
<(Email removed)>
(Email removed)
Weren't some of the lawyers and barristers in the Barks "Heirloom
Watch" story eagle-people? Barks used moose-people (the Clan McElk seen
briefly in "Hound of the Whiskervilles"), cat-people (Snake-Eyes McViper in
WDC&S 108), rat-people (various villains), elephant-people ("The Beauty
Business," one of the last ten-pagers), monkey-people (WDC&S 63), and so
on...
So even if they're less frequent than fowl, dogs, and pigs, other
animals DO get humanized in the Duck canon.... whether or not us two, or
any others, decide to use them. So what separates the kind of characters
in the Duck Universe and "mature" Mouse Universe from "funny animals"?
I draw the line where an animal's claim to fame is an exaggerated
physical characteristic (like a trunk) which makes the creature impossible
to depict in poses that parallel a human being's. There's actually a very
early European (Italian?) story where Donald is paired with an
octopus-person). Nope. Nor would I ever use an elephant character.
For me, "funny animal" implies your garden-variety DC zoomorph: a
comic-book character who retains some animal traits (like the Three
Mousketeers being mouse-sized and living in a hole). Such a character
often has one or all of: (A) an obnoxious attitude, (B) a speech
impediment, (C) wild mannerisms, (D) self-conscious "screwiness".
So... Donald Duck isn't a real "funny animal," because he's too
realistically portrayed as a human being for most of the above to hold
true. Same goes for Mickey, Goofy (most of the time), etc.
Gus and Jaq, Chip 'n' Dale, are "funny animals". Same goes for
Ellsworth (VERY DC with his ability to fly). Same for Zeke Wolf and the
"Song of the South" characters, although the way they're depicted makes
them more human and sympathetic than most.
Li'l Bad Wolf is essentially a "mature Mouse-universe type" who's
stuck with a father who's a funny-animal "type", hence the crucial
conflicts of their series of stories. Weird, eh?
At the very beginning of the Mickey strip, the animals chosen to be
humanized as background players are dogs, pigs, ducks, chickens, rabbits,
cats, rats, mice, cows, giraffes, and goats. The giraffes, ducks, and
rabbits vanish in 1932, the cows, chickens and goats around 1935, the cats
around 1940. The interesting thing is that these "extinctions" leave
certain characters, such as Clarabelle and Pete, as the isolated members of
their species left in their societies. Donald in the Mickey universe is
indeed an anomaly, popping up two years after other ducks cease to be shown
in the strip.
Aside from one or two of his relatives (shown in isolated stories),
I think Horace Horsecollar is the ONLY humanized horse ever shown in these
comics. Even at the very beginning (1930) he's virtually the only one!
David Gerstein
"Have you ever heard a dog talk?" (Mickey to Goofy, 1936)
<(Email removed)>
(Email removed)
Jane Lewis
Query
Message 289 -
1996-10-29 at 18:07:09
Well, I am glad I found you all! For almost forty years I have
needed to replace a Scrooge comic book that my mother threw out (with many
others alas) to stop the waste of my mind (to no avail). All I know is the
bare bones of the story: Scrooge is challenged by another rich bird who
claims HE is the richest of all. They count their respective vaults and
come out to the penny. All other things being equal, they find that the
only unmeasured asset each has is a giant ball of string. The adventure
continues around the world as they unwind their twine balls -- which come
out exactly equal. Then Scrooge remenbers the first dime he ever madeis
tied to his waistcoat with about ten inches of string. With ten inches of
string more than the challenger, Scrooge wins the title of the richest duck
in the world. Can anyone identify the number of this comic, so that I can
make an attempt to recapture this remembrance of my childhood? Thanks in
advance.
jkl
needed to replace a Scrooge comic book that my mother threw out (with many
others alas) to stop the waste of my mind (to no avail). All I know is the
bare bones of the story: Scrooge is challenged by another rich bird who
claims HE is the richest of all. They count their respective vaults and
come out to the penny. All other things being equal, they find that the
only unmeasured asset each has is a giant ball of string. The adventure
continues around the world as they unwind their twine balls -- which come
out exactly equal. Then Scrooge remenbers the first dime he ever madeis
tied to his waistcoat with about ten inches of string. With ten inches of
string more than the challenger, Scrooge wins the title of the richest duck
in the world. Can anyone identify the number of this comic, so that I can
make an attempt to recapture this remembrance of my childhood? Thanks in
advance.
jkl
Gary Leach
Disney comics Digest V96 #237
Message 290 -
1996-10-29 at 18:43:08
DAVID:
>Egmont published Don's "Lost Charts of Columbus" with an original
>cover by Don. Do you guys have that cover? (Maybe you do, and it's
>illustrated in PREVIEWS, but I haven't seen that yet this week.)
> Egmont must have given Gladstone the wrong writer credit for "The
>Moving Money Bin," for Jim Kenner died ten years ago, while "Bin" has a
>1990s D-code. Which means that --
> BYRON [you there, Byron?] should be able to correct the erroneous
>Egmont credit for us. (I guess you have recent Gladstones lying around the
>office somewhere?)
We have Don's cover, yes indeed, and we will be using it. Whether it shows
up in PREVIEWS is entirely up to the Diamond Publishing folks.
"The Moving Money Bin" is an old story, David, exhumed from the Gladstone
Series I archives of unpublished material. Why that material sports a
seeming 1990s code number is a bit of a mystery to us, but it's no doubt
all Byron's fault! ;-)
KRITON:
>GLADSTONE:
>Have you started accepting subscriptions for Penny Pincher comics?
Not yet (but soon!). I see your point about giving overseas subscribers a
jump on things, but subscription availability of any title is something we
always announce just as soon as we possibly can.
ALL:
The first Penny Pincher has been rescheduled to ship in February, instead
of January.
By the way, the letter columns will be returning to the newsstand
Gladstone's early next year.
Gary
------------------------------------------------
Gladstone on the Web: http://www.hamlco.com/bhc/
------------------------------------------------
>Egmont published Don's "Lost Charts of Columbus" with an original
>cover by Don. Do you guys have that cover? (Maybe you do, and it's
>illustrated in PREVIEWS, but I haven't seen that yet this week.)
> Egmont must have given Gladstone the wrong writer credit for "The
>Moving Money Bin," for Jim Kenner died ten years ago, while "Bin" has a
>1990s D-code. Which means that --
> BYRON [you there, Byron?] should be able to correct the erroneous
>Egmont credit for us. (I guess you have recent Gladstones lying around the
>office somewhere?)
We have Don's cover, yes indeed, and we will be using it. Whether it shows
up in PREVIEWS is entirely up to the Diamond Publishing folks.
"The Moving Money Bin" is an old story, David, exhumed from the Gladstone
Series I archives of unpublished material. Why that material sports a
seeming 1990s code number is a bit of a mystery to us, but it's no doubt
all Byron's fault! ;-)
KRITON:
>GLADSTONE:
>Have you started accepting subscriptions for Penny Pincher comics?
Not yet (but soon!). I see your point about giving overseas subscribers a
jump on things, but subscription availability of any title is something we
always announce just as soon as we possibly can.
ALL:
The first Penny Pincher has been rescheduled to ship in February, instead
of January.
By the way, the letter columns will be returning to the newsstand
Gladstone's early next year.
Gary
------------------------------------------------
Gladstone on the Web: http://www.hamlco.com/bhc/
------------------------------------------------
BBranvold
Disney comics Digest V96 #237
Message 291 -
1996-10-29 at 19:30:55
Don wrote about his empty ink bottle selling for perhaps $1.
Don-Do you remember the short stubby pencil on reverent display
at The Flying Colors comic store in San Francisco? Certainly many
dealers and collectors around the world would do the same for your
ink bottle! If you are looking for a starting place, send me the bottle,
I will put in on a placque and send it around the world!
It should carry more status than any Candy-Striped Ruby!
Long live the Ink Bottle! ---Barry---
Don-Do you remember the short stubby pencil on reverent display
at The Flying Colors comic store in San Francisco? Certainly many
dealers and collectors around the world would do the same for your
ink bottle! If you are looking for a starting place, send me the bottle,
I will put in on a placque and send it around the world!
It should carry more status than any Candy-Striped Ruby!
Long live the Ink Bottle! ---Barry---
Markoff
Disney comics Digest V96 #237
Message 292 -
1996-10-29 at 19:37:36
OTA:
>Please if someone tells me a clue for the 70's Western Reprints,
>maybe it would be easier for me to find it... I haven't all the
>Gladstone comics but have a reasonable pack of Gold Key comics!
To see all info on Dell, Gold Key, and Whitman issues that have been
reported to Harry Fluks' database, all you need to do is go to
ftp://ftp.update.uu.se/pub/comics/disney/index/western/
and click on whichever link contains the title (WDC&S, Donald Duck, etc.)
you're looking for. Some have many titles in the same file, but it's all in
alphabetical order.
DAVID:
>Nothing's wrong (vis-a-vis DC) with using Profs. Ecks and Doublex,
>except that I think Egmont has a rule that Mickey-universe characters can't
>appear in a Donald story.
Huh? "On the Ball" featured both Mickey and Prof. Dustibones with Donald and
HDL.
>Egmont must have given Gladstone the wrong writer credit for "The
>Moving Money Bin," for Jim Kenner died ten years ago, while "Bin" has a
>1990s D-code. Which means that --
Which means that it's interesting that this question comes up around Halloween!
DON:
Which story was Wanda Waddle from?
BTW, does anyone know how to but Chalker's book?
>As for Emil Eagle, I might consider using a good non-Barks character in a
>story, but I can't bring myself to use a character named Emil "Eagle", since
>I know that in Duck comics eagles fly around and build nests in trees.
OTOH, there are some Barks stories where ducks swim around and say "Quack!"
and get bagged by game hunters. Rememeber what the Ducks (DD and HDL) found
in El Dorado's trophy room in "The Gilded Man"?
NEW TOPIC:
Are the following Disney authors/artists on-line? I've never seen them on
the list.
Pat Block
Shelly Block
Vic Lockman
John Blair Moore
William Van Horn
Ben Verhagen
>Please if someone tells me a clue for the 70's Western Reprints,
>maybe it would be easier for me to find it... I haven't all the
>Gladstone comics but have a reasonable pack of Gold Key comics!
To see all info on Dell, Gold Key, and Whitman issues that have been
reported to Harry Fluks' database, all you need to do is go to
ftp://ftp.update.uu.se/pub/comics/disney/index/western/
and click on whichever link contains the title (WDC&S, Donald Duck, etc.)
you're looking for. Some have many titles in the same file, but it's all in
alphabetical order.
DAVID:
>Nothing's wrong (vis-a-vis DC) with using Profs. Ecks and Doublex,
>except that I think Egmont has a rule that Mickey-universe characters can't
>appear in a Donald story.
Huh? "On the Ball" featured both Mickey and Prof. Dustibones with Donald and
HDL.
>Egmont must have given Gladstone the wrong writer credit for "The
>Moving Money Bin," for Jim Kenner died ten years ago, while "Bin" has a
>1990s D-code. Which means that --
Which means that it's interesting that this question comes up around Halloween!
DON:
Which story was Wanda Waddle from?
BTW, does anyone know how to but Chalker's book?
>As for Emil Eagle, I might consider using a good non-Barks character in a
>story, but I can't bring myself to use a character named Emil "Eagle", since
>I know that in Duck comics eagles fly around and build nests in trees.
OTOH, there are some Barks stories where ducks swim around and say "Quack!"
and get bagged by game hunters. Rememeber what the Ducks (DD and HDL) found
in El Dorado's trophy room in "The Gilded Man"?
NEW TOPIC:
Are the following Disney authors/artists on-line? I've never seen them on
the list.
Pat Block
Shelly Block
Vic Lockman
John Blair Moore
William Van Horn
Ben Verhagen
RMorris306
Disney animals et al
Message 293 -
1996-10-29 at 20:10:41
Hi again! Let's see if I can post more than once a week for once...
AUGIE DE BLIECK JR:
<<Contains "The Secret of the Duckburg Triangle," a feature- length story
that was produced by the Disney Studios to run in their own line of comic
books, but was never published -- until now.>>
No writer or artist given? I keep thinking of the "Disney Studios" as
being animators, and maybe they were, but there's really no excuse for not
providing them. The movies have full and detailed credits now; why not the
comics? Ditto the Jamie Diaz stories with no further credits than "The Walt
Disney Studio."
DAVID GERSTEIN:
<<Actually, the name usually used instead of Bolivar was "Bernie"
(short for "Bornworthy"), not Bully.
At Egmont, the character's official name is still
Bornworthy/Bernie. Why that German comic (which I saw) calls him Bolivar is
anyone's guess, particularly as it doesn't make sense with past German
comics!
At Disney-Burbank, the character is now officially back to Bolivar
(since 1992, when a decision was made), and had that name in 1992's DDAD
32-33 and last spring's DDA 38 (among others). I prefer the name Bolivar.>>
Having just acquired a dog of my own, a Welsh Springer Spaniel puppy
called Joanna or Jo but officially registered as "Tregelli Summer Storm," I
can understand why Donald's dog would have so many different names...
<<Nothing's wrong (vis-a-vis DC) with using Profs. Ecks and Doublex,
except that I think Egmont has a rule that Mickey-universe characters can't
appear in a Donald story.>>
Which goes against some of the early Barks stories like "Pirate Gold"
and "The Mummy's Ring" that used Black Pete as the villain, but I gather that
means they won't do so from now on...?
<<Actually, no one really needs to "bring them back" -- Disney Comics
did a continuity wherein the two had accidentally turned themselves into
Siamese twins via a fouled-up experiment, and the King Features daily strip
used them several times from 1990-94. The two (along with their brother
Triplex) are actually in the Mickey story I'm finishing right now, as well as
perhaps in other Egmont
stories.>>
The strip, sad to say, isn't widely circulated in the United States
these days, even in the papers owned by King Features' owners, the Hearst
chain. The *only* place I've seen it in the last 25 years was in a
Spanish-language paper (which also carried POPEYE and a number of other
low-circulation strips... even *I* didn't know there was a TOM & JERRY
strip!). I'm surprised Disney doesn't push harder to get it circulated.
<< Actually, Sylvester Shyster is Pete's partner in "The Mail Pilot,"
rather than Eli Squinch (who hadn't yet debuted in 1933). I particularly
like Shyster, that hammy wannabe Victorian villain.>>
Any chance of bringing him back in a new story?
<<Good to hear that "The Purloined Putty" is scheduled for a reprint
(in PENNY PINCHER #1). Really one of the best Jones stories, and never
reprinted in a comic book before. This is the kind of Barks story I'd much
rather see than the umpteenth reprint of, say, "Land Beneath the Ground"
(great, of course, but rather tired after so many reprints).>>
Definitely. Indeed, I think all Barks' $crooge stories have been
reprinted several times...one reason that's the one Gladstone album series
I'm passing up...
DON ROSA:
<<I think I'll have a lil' plaque made that says "the first 10 years of my
Duck stories came out of this bottle" and sign it and donate it to some
charity auction or something. Or
sell it at Sotheby's for $10,000! Or $10. Or $1?>>
Good luck, though don't forget the lackluster response to Win Smith's
attempt to sell his old desk. On the other hand, he made a lot more
extravagant claims about it (early Mickey strips *were* done on it, but not
*the* earliest as he claimed) than you're likely to.
<<Ah -- I thought maybe that's who Wanda Waddle was. That was the problem
when I was using that Chalker book ("An Informal Biography of Scrooge
McDuck") for double-checking facts when I did my "Lo$". It's a GREAT book,
but Chalker starts off by saying that he considers only Barks stories as
canonical when dealing with $crooge, then he goes on to treat EVERYTHING that
appeared in the first 70 issues of UNCLE $CROOGE as if it was ALL by Barks,
even though I'm certain that he knew it obviously wasn't. So Wanda Waddle was
a character in one of those many non-Barks stories in one of
those issues... and I choose to ignore her, as Chalker should have.>>
Which story in which issue? Now you've got *me* going. And does anyone
know who *did* write and draw it?
<<As for Emil Eagle, I might consider using a good non-Barks character in a
story, but I can't bring myself to use a character named Emil "Eagle", since
I know that in Duck comics eagles fly around and build nests in trees. I
allow myself to use waterfowl, dog-people, pig-people and whatever Gyro is
(I think a cockatoo... that's clearly not a chicken-beak)... but no
eagle-people.>>
Well, given that there are not only dog-people but dog-dogs (Goofy and
Pluto in Mickey's "universe" are the most famous examples, but the Barks
universe has the Beagle Boys, Jones and many others alongside
Bolivar/Bornworthy and the Woodchucks' Official Hound), what's wrong with an
eagle-person? Even the dogs and ducks have names that don't match their
appearance; the Beagle Boys look nothing like beagles, and another Barks
character, Katie Mallard, had a white head like Donald and the other ducks.
(Don't Mallard ducks have *green* heads? Or is that only the males? But I do
know they don't have *white* heads.)
<<This is the odd viewpoint that reading Barks comics and not
"funny-animal" comics all my life has given me. A non-Barks fan might ask me
if I do stories about talking Ducks and pigs and dogs, and I'd proudly answer
"Yes! Certainly!" But then they might ask if I also do stories about talking
mice and chickens and eagles, and I'd say "What? Good gosh, grow up! What a
silly idea!">>
And yet even Barks used other animals, especially in his early stories.
There's the owl who's the judge in most of the courtroom scenes, and in
"Pirate Gold" (yes, I know the Disney animators, not Barks, wrote *that*
story) included not only Black Pete (a cat-person, but, as David said, not
likely to show up in the Duck universe instead), but also rat-people (his
henchmen) and a parrot-person (Donald's partner Yellow Beak). Normally Barks'
parrots talk (which is to be expected) but also fly (like the Pixillated
Parrot and Joe from Singapore), but Yellow Beak's status as a parrot-man is
clear when Pete's men make him and Donald walk the plank. He doesn't fly away
(even though he's a parrot), nor, in that story, does it seem any more
incongruous than the fact that Donald doesn't swim away (even though he's a
duck).
But it truly became bizarre in the rewritten version Gladstone once
reprinted, transplanting the story into the Peter Pan universe with all the
characters taken from that movie...except for Yellow Beak, turned into a
*real* parrot. In that version, it's truly inexplicable that, when Captain
Hook made him walk the plank, he *doesn't* fly away!
Head reeling,
Rich Morrissey
AUGIE DE BLIECK JR:
<<Contains "The Secret of the Duckburg Triangle," a feature- length story
that was produced by the Disney Studios to run in their own line of comic
books, but was never published -- until now.>>
No writer or artist given? I keep thinking of the "Disney Studios" as
being animators, and maybe they were, but there's really no excuse for not
providing them. The movies have full and detailed credits now; why not the
comics? Ditto the Jamie Diaz stories with no further credits than "The Walt
Disney Studio."
DAVID GERSTEIN:
<<Actually, the name usually used instead of Bolivar was "Bernie"
(short for "Bornworthy"), not Bully.
At Egmont, the character's official name is still
Bornworthy/Bernie. Why that German comic (which I saw) calls him Bolivar is
anyone's guess, particularly as it doesn't make sense with past German
comics!
At Disney-Burbank, the character is now officially back to Bolivar
(since 1992, when a decision was made), and had that name in 1992's DDAD
32-33 and last spring's DDA 38 (among others). I prefer the name Bolivar.>>
Having just acquired a dog of my own, a Welsh Springer Spaniel puppy
called Joanna or Jo but officially registered as "Tregelli Summer Storm," I
can understand why Donald's dog would have so many different names...
<<Nothing's wrong (vis-a-vis DC) with using Profs. Ecks and Doublex,
except that I think Egmont has a rule that Mickey-universe characters can't
appear in a Donald story.>>
Which goes against some of the early Barks stories like "Pirate Gold"
and "The Mummy's Ring" that used Black Pete as the villain, but I gather that
means they won't do so from now on...?
<<Actually, no one really needs to "bring them back" -- Disney Comics
did a continuity wherein the two had accidentally turned themselves into
Siamese twins via a fouled-up experiment, and the King Features daily strip
used them several times from 1990-94. The two (along with their brother
Triplex) are actually in the Mickey story I'm finishing right now, as well as
perhaps in other Egmont
stories.>>
The strip, sad to say, isn't widely circulated in the United States
these days, even in the papers owned by King Features' owners, the Hearst
chain. The *only* place I've seen it in the last 25 years was in a
Spanish-language paper (which also carried POPEYE and a number of other
low-circulation strips... even *I* didn't know there was a TOM & JERRY
strip!). I'm surprised Disney doesn't push harder to get it circulated.
<< Actually, Sylvester Shyster is Pete's partner in "The Mail Pilot,"
rather than Eli Squinch (who hadn't yet debuted in 1933). I particularly
like Shyster, that hammy wannabe Victorian villain.>>
Any chance of bringing him back in a new story?
<<Good to hear that "The Purloined Putty" is scheduled for a reprint
(in PENNY PINCHER #1). Really one of the best Jones stories, and never
reprinted in a comic book before. This is the kind of Barks story I'd much
rather see than the umpteenth reprint of, say, "Land Beneath the Ground"
(great, of course, but rather tired after so many reprints).>>
Definitely. Indeed, I think all Barks' $crooge stories have been
reprinted several times...one reason that's the one Gladstone album series
I'm passing up...
DON ROSA:
<<I think I'll have a lil' plaque made that says "the first 10 years of my
Duck stories came out of this bottle" and sign it and donate it to some
charity auction or something. Or
sell it at Sotheby's for $10,000! Or $10. Or $1?>>
Good luck, though don't forget the lackluster response to Win Smith's
attempt to sell his old desk. On the other hand, he made a lot more
extravagant claims about it (early Mickey strips *were* done on it, but not
*the* earliest as he claimed) than you're likely to.
<<Ah -- I thought maybe that's who Wanda Waddle was. That was the problem
when I was using that Chalker book ("An Informal Biography of Scrooge
McDuck") for double-checking facts when I did my "Lo$". It's a GREAT book,
but Chalker starts off by saying that he considers only Barks stories as
canonical when dealing with $crooge, then he goes on to treat EVERYTHING that
appeared in the first 70 issues of UNCLE $CROOGE as if it was ALL by Barks,
even though I'm certain that he knew it obviously wasn't. So Wanda Waddle was
a character in one of those many non-Barks stories in one of
those issues... and I choose to ignore her, as Chalker should have.>>
Which story in which issue? Now you've got *me* going. And does anyone
know who *did* write and draw it?
<<As for Emil Eagle, I might consider using a good non-Barks character in a
story, but I can't bring myself to use a character named Emil "Eagle", since
I know that in Duck comics eagles fly around and build nests in trees. I
allow myself to use waterfowl, dog-people, pig-people and whatever Gyro is
(I think a cockatoo... that's clearly not a chicken-beak)... but no
eagle-people.>>
Well, given that there are not only dog-people but dog-dogs (Goofy and
Pluto in Mickey's "universe" are the most famous examples, but the Barks
universe has the Beagle Boys, Jones and many others alongside
Bolivar/Bornworthy and the Woodchucks' Official Hound), what's wrong with an
eagle-person? Even the dogs and ducks have names that don't match their
appearance; the Beagle Boys look nothing like beagles, and another Barks
character, Katie Mallard, had a white head like Donald and the other ducks.
(Don't Mallard ducks have *green* heads? Or is that only the males? But I do
know they don't have *white* heads.)
<<This is the odd viewpoint that reading Barks comics and not
"funny-animal" comics all my life has given me. A non-Barks fan might ask me
if I do stories about talking Ducks and pigs and dogs, and I'd proudly answer
"Yes! Certainly!" But then they might ask if I also do stories about talking
mice and chickens and eagles, and I'd say "What? Good gosh, grow up! What a
silly idea!">>
And yet even Barks used other animals, especially in his early stories.
There's the owl who's the judge in most of the courtroom scenes, and in
"Pirate Gold" (yes, I know the Disney animators, not Barks, wrote *that*
story) included not only Black Pete (a cat-person, but, as David said, not
likely to show up in the Duck universe instead), but also rat-people (his
henchmen) and a parrot-person (Donald's partner Yellow Beak). Normally Barks'
parrots talk (which is to be expected) but also fly (like the Pixillated
Parrot and Joe from Singapore), but Yellow Beak's status as a parrot-man is
clear when Pete's men make him and Donald walk the plank. He doesn't fly away
(even though he's a parrot), nor, in that story, does it seem any more
incongruous than the fact that Donald doesn't swim away (even though he's a
duck).
But it truly became bizarre in the rewritten version Gladstone once
reprinted, transplanting the story into the Peter Pan universe with all the
characters taken from that movie...except for Yellow Beak, turned into a
*real* parrot. In that version, it's truly inexplicable that, when Captain
Hook made him walk the plank, he *doesn't* fly away!
Head reeling,
Rich Morrissey
Daniel C. Kenny
Rosa questions
Message 294 -
1996-10-30 at 07:06:09
Greetings to all of you folks. This is my first time on the list, so let me
start with my favorite topic: Don Rosa's stories. Anybody notice in the picture
"Anything but Those" in US 300, that the giant treasure from "Son of the Sun"
is pictured on the wall of Scrooge's money bin? I thought that the entire
temple sank into that bottomless lake. Does this mean that Mr. Rosa is
planning a sequel to this story where Scrooge retrieves the waterlogged
treasure? I hope so. Maybe Scrooge will even re-encounter Atlantis in his
underwater search. That would be an interesting story, but if Mr. Rosa has
anything planned, I'm sure his ideas are much, much better.
start with my favorite topic: Don Rosa's stories. Anybody notice in the picture
"Anything but Those" in US 300, that the giant treasure from "Son of the Sun"
is pictured on the wall of Scrooge's money bin? I thought that the entire
temple sank into that bottomless lake. Does this mean that Mr. Rosa is
planning a sequel to this story where Scrooge retrieves the waterlogged
treasure? I hope so. Maybe Scrooge will even re-encounter Atlantis in his
underwater search. That would be an interesting story, but if Mr. Rosa has
anything planned, I'm sure his ideas are much, much better.
Harald Havas
Disney comics Digest V96 #236
Message 295 -
1996-10-30 at 12:22:52
Byron wrote
>Super Duck (or "Paperinik") is being TESTED in Germany and Norway only.
>If it's a smash success, I'm sure it will also be published in Denmark.
>The same goes for the Italian Woodchuck magazine.
Just for the record: there also is a new German Woodchuck-digest
called "U.F.F" (Unternehmen Faehnlein Fieselschweif, lit. "Assignment
Junior Woodchucks" - "Uff!" being a much used sound-word in German).
Another test, I suppose...
ENGLISH DUCKS
Somebody mentioned on this list that "Ariel" seems to be the only
regular Disney-Comic in England. Well, a friend just gave me "Disney
and friends" # 29/96 containing Dutch and Danish stories and it looks
_quite_ regular.
Harald
--- (Harald Havas) (Email removed)
>Super Duck (or "Paperinik") is being TESTED in Germany and Norway only.
>If it's a smash success, I'm sure it will also be published in Denmark.
>The same goes for the Italian Woodchuck magazine.
Just for the record: there also is a new German Woodchuck-digest
called "U.F.F" (Unternehmen Faehnlein Fieselschweif, lit. "Assignment
Junior Woodchucks" - "Uff!" being a much used sound-word in German).
Another test, I suppose...
ENGLISH DUCKS
Somebody mentioned on this list that "Ariel" seems to be the only
regular Disney-Comic in England. Well, a friend just gave me "Disney
and friends" # 29/96 containing Dutch and Danish stories and it looks
_quite_ regular.
Harald
--- (Harald Havas) (Email removed)
TKlein28
Disney comics Digest V96 #237
Message 296 -
1996-10-30 at 14:06:44
DON:
<< The bottle I bought in 1987 is just about dry -- close enough that I think
I'll pour out the remainder as being "too old" for safe use. So it would take
me close to 40 years to use one gallon of ink!>>
What kind of ink are you using? You might want to hang on to that remainder
while you try a new bottle, because a lot of the drawing inks have changed
their formulas over the last few years, and are no longer quite the same as
they used to be. For instance, I used Higgins Black Magic from 1977 to last
year, when the new bottle I bought proved to be too thin, and too easy to
erase for my use. I then went on a search for a replacement, finally settling
on Calli Jet Black 010, which comes closest to the old Black Magic formula,
but doesn't work well over white paint, so I saved my old Black Magic
remainder for that.
Todd
<< The bottle I bought in 1987 is just about dry -- close enough that I think
I'll pour out the remainder as being "too old" for safe use. So it would take
me close to 40 years to use one gallon of ink!>>
What kind of ink are you using? You might want to hang on to that remainder
while you try a new bottle, because a lot of the drawing inks have changed
their formulas over the last few years, and are no longer quite the same as
they used to be. For instance, I used Higgins Black Magic from 1977 to last
year, when the new bottle I bought proved to be too thin, and too easy to
erase for my use. I then went on a search for a replacement, finally settling
on Calli Jet Black 010, which comes closest to the old Black Magic formula,
but doesn't work well over white paint, so I saved my old Black Magic
remainder for that.
Todd
Harald Havas
Covers
Message 297 -
1996-10-30 at 15:25:20
Say, y'all, where is the best place in the net to fin an extensive
collection of Disney-COVERS, esp. Barks'?
And is there a publication with lots of covers somewhere?
?Harald?
--- (Harald Havas) (Email removed)
collection of Disney-COVERS, esp. Barks'?
And is there a publication with lots of covers somewhere?
?Harald?
--- (Harald Havas) (Email removed)
Gerstein
Disney comics Digest V96 #238
Message 298 -
1996-10-30 at 17:39:16
JANE:
The comic story you remember is "The Second-Richest Duck" from
UNCLE SCROOGE #15 (1956). The Second-Richest Duck himself is Flintheart
Glomgold (something familiar about that name!), and due to the classic
status of the story -- not to mention its being the first appearance of
Glomgold -- it's been reprinted many times.
I just checked our database, and you can find the story reprinted
in UNCLE SCROOGE 89 (1960s) and 160 (1970s), UNCLE SCROOGE COMICS DIGEST 2
(1986), UNCLE SCROOGE McDUCK (Celestial Arts book, 1987), GLADSTONE GIANT
ALBUM 4 (1990). Many comic shops still have the last one (Giant Album 4)
and it's also the best, since it contains three other long adventures with
Glomgold besides his first appearance.
Happy Duck-hunting!
GARY:
Thanks for the good news about the letter columns!
As for the confusion over the 1990s code on "The Moving Money
Bin"... John once told me how he'd gotten a big pile of 1990s D-coded
stories from Disney, which Disney never got around to using when publishing
the comics themselves. I bet this was in that pile, pulled for possible
use at one point, not used, then put back among 1980s Gladstone I surplus
rather than among the 1990s leftovers from Disney.
But maybe this isn't really worth all the discussion... ;-)
JONATHAN:
"Huh? "On the Ball" featured both Mickey and Prof. Dustibones with
Donald and HDL."
Yes, but since Mickey and Donald were allowed to appear together in
that story, it meant that other characters from the two universes could mix
as well.
As for that list of possible list participants you brought up, Pat
and Shelly Block just got a computer, and don't have internet access yet.
I don't know about the others you mentioned.
RICH:
I think "The Secret of the Duckburg Triangle" must be a Jaime Diaz
story. When I spoke with Pat Block about his cover, he glanced at a copy
of the story and read me a code that began with "S83..."
Even Disney doesn't have complete credits on the old stories they
commissioned from the Diaz studio. Back when Disney Comics Inc. was up and
running, a lot of those stories' credits were organized, but things have
been in disarray since that division closed down.
I've learned that the S-stories are mostly archived in Burbank, but
they aren't all filed in the proper order, some have credits, and some
don't. Some stories are actually missing: around 1989, someone (unknown to
me) junked all holdings on certain stories that he/she found offensive.
That means that some S-coded stories only exist now in foreign versions.
Gladstone tried to order an early Studio story -- from the period
when they were coded with an X -- last year, and as far as I know, they
haven't gotten it yet. (An early story with Fethry Duck and Hard Haid
Moe.) Gary, any updates for us here?
Meanwhile...
The Mickey Sunday strip appears in the Framingham, Mass. paper (and
a few others). The daily is in two papers in the country, I think. These
strips, as they stand now, are really the last holdout of the 1970s Mickey,
drawn in 1971 style, and concerned with going to work and disciplining
Morty.
Sylvester Shyster was originally the villain in an Egmont story
("The Cavern in the Shifting Sands") that I wrote last year, but the artist
drew it with Eli Squinch by accident. Sylvester Shyster should, however,
appear as himself in one of the first Mickeys I'm going to write
next year.
What story is Katie Mallard from?
HARALD:
When I lived in Scotland a year ago, there was a regular Disney
comic weekly (a standard Egmont weekly) called "Mickey and Friends," along
with two monthlies, "The Little Mermaid" and "Disney and Me" (very simple
comics for the youngest children).
When I was at Egmont (a month ago), I was told that "Mickey and
Friends" was no longer published. I think that if you have a #29/96, that
may be one of the very last issues. I was also in Scotland during my trip
to Europe; not only was there no sign of "Mickey and Friends" anywhere,
but it was not advertised in "Disney and Me" or "The Little Mermaid"
either.
One oddity -- you call the #29/96 weekly "Disney and Friends". Is
this a typo for "Mickey and Friends"? If it really is called "Disney and
Friends," perhaps the comic was briefly off the market while they renamed
it?
Anyway, enough of that... what's in the comic? ;-)
David Gerstein
<(Email removed)>
(Email removed)
The comic story you remember is "The Second-Richest Duck" from
UNCLE SCROOGE #15 (1956). The Second-Richest Duck himself is Flintheart
Glomgold (something familiar about that name!), and due to the classic
status of the story -- not to mention its being the first appearance of
Glomgold -- it's been reprinted many times.
I just checked our database, and you can find the story reprinted
in UNCLE SCROOGE 89 (1960s) and 160 (1970s), UNCLE SCROOGE COMICS DIGEST 2
(1986), UNCLE SCROOGE McDUCK (Celestial Arts book, 1987), GLADSTONE GIANT
ALBUM 4 (1990). Many comic shops still have the last one (Giant Album 4)
and it's also the best, since it contains three other long adventures with
Glomgold besides his first appearance.
Happy Duck-hunting!
GARY:
Thanks for the good news about the letter columns!
As for the confusion over the 1990s code on "The Moving Money
Bin"... John once told me how he'd gotten a big pile of 1990s D-coded
stories from Disney, which Disney never got around to using when publishing
the comics themselves. I bet this was in that pile, pulled for possible
use at one point, not used, then put back among 1980s Gladstone I surplus
rather than among the 1990s leftovers from Disney.
But maybe this isn't really worth all the discussion... ;-)
JONATHAN:
"Huh? "On the Ball" featured both Mickey and Prof. Dustibones with
Donald and HDL."
Yes, but since Mickey and Donald were allowed to appear together in
that story, it meant that other characters from the two universes could mix
as well.
As for that list of possible list participants you brought up, Pat
and Shelly Block just got a computer, and don't have internet access yet.
I don't know about the others you mentioned.
RICH:
I think "The Secret of the Duckburg Triangle" must be a Jaime Diaz
story. When I spoke with Pat Block about his cover, he glanced at a copy
of the story and read me a code that began with "S83..."
Even Disney doesn't have complete credits on the old stories they
commissioned from the Diaz studio. Back when Disney Comics Inc. was up and
running, a lot of those stories' credits were organized, but things have
been in disarray since that division closed down.
I've learned that the S-stories are mostly archived in Burbank, but
they aren't all filed in the proper order, some have credits, and some
don't. Some stories are actually missing: around 1989, someone (unknown to
me) junked all holdings on certain stories that he/she found offensive.
That means that some S-coded stories only exist now in foreign versions.
Gladstone tried to order an early Studio story -- from the period
when they were coded with an X -- last year, and as far as I know, they
haven't gotten it yet. (An early story with Fethry Duck and Hard Haid
Moe.) Gary, any updates for us here?
Meanwhile...
The Mickey Sunday strip appears in the Framingham, Mass. paper (and
a few others). The daily is in two papers in the country, I think. These
strips, as they stand now, are really the last holdout of the 1970s Mickey,
drawn in 1971 style, and concerned with going to work and disciplining
Morty.
Sylvester Shyster was originally the villain in an Egmont story
("The Cavern in the Shifting Sands") that I wrote last year, but the artist
drew it with Eli Squinch by accident. Sylvester Shyster should, however,
appear as himself in one of the first Mickeys I'm going to write
next year.
What story is Katie Mallard from?
HARALD:
When I lived in Scotland a year ago, there was a regular Disney
comic weekly (a standard Egmont weekly) called "Mickey and Friends," along
with two monthlies, "The Little Mermaid" and "Disney and Me" (very simple
comics for the youngest children).
When I was at Egmont (a month ago), I was told that "Mickey and
Friends" was no longer published. I think that if you have a #29/96, that
may be one of the very last issues. I was also in Scotland during my trip
to Europe; not only was there no sign of "Mickey and Friends" anywhere,
but it was not advertised in "Disney and Me" or "The Little Mermaid"
either.
One oddity -- you call the #29/96 weekly "Disney and Friends". Is
this a typo for "Mickey and Friends"? If it really is called "Disney and
Friends," perhaps the comic was briefly off the market while they renamed
it?
Anyway, enough of that... what's in the comic? ;-)
David Gerstein
<(Email removed)>
(Email removed)
Procm
Disney comics Digest V96 #235
Message 299 -
1996-10-30 at 19:38:49
Hi I was wondering if anyone knows when and If they will be showing
Dona Rosa work in chicago.
--------------------------------
End of Disney comics Digest V96 Issue #238
******************************************
Dona Rosa work in chicago.
--------------------------------
End of Disney comics Digest V96 Issue #238
******************************************
Procm
Disney comics Digest V96 #235
Message 300 -
1996-10-30 at 19:42:18
Hi my name Is mike prochaska and I want to thank all you disney fans for
opening up my eyes to Disney comics in other countrys outside of the USA.
The comics I recieved were great even though I couldn't really read read
them because they are in langues I don't know.. But it opened my eyes to
how popular dinsey comics are around the world and to a few new
chartures I had not seen before..
opening up my eyes to Disney comics in other countrys outside of the USA.
The comics I recieved were great even though I couldn't really read read
them because they are in langues I don't know.. But it opened my eyes to
how popular dinsey comics are around the world and to a few new
chartures I had not seen before..