Keskustelujen arkisto

BYRON:

> We
>Egmont editors sat down and discussed it in depth a couple of years ago
>and tried to come up with a list of which animals can be people, and
>which must remain animals. We found out it's not that simple.

What about dogs? Isn't Goofy (aka Dippy Dawg) a dog-person? And isn't Pluto
a dog-animal?

Marco

On Nov 10, 11:41pm, M. Barlotti wrote:
> Subject: which animals are animals?

> What about dogs? Isn't Goofy (aka Dippy Dawg) a dog-person? And isn't
Pluto
> a dog-animal?
>
I always felt it was like monkeys and people here. We have
monkeys, who are clearly animals, and we have people, who
are related but have language and technology and wear
clothes. On Earth Disney, the same thing happened but to
a lot of other animal families besides the primates. Thus
animal dogs and people dogs.

--Dwight Decker

BYRON
As for Gottfredson's death date, wasn't "Mickey Mouse in Color" dedicated to
Gottfredson? The book was published in 1988, I think. I think an exact date
is mentioned in the book too, but don't quote me on that! My book's at home
and I'm away at college now, so I can't check. Does anybody else have access?

KRITON
Frankly, I agree with you in regards to Tony Strobl. I NEVER liked his work.
His Duck drawings seem processed, shaped into different poses by an assembly
line, overwhelmingly lacking in any of the energy and life Barks infused into
his drawings. His stories, except for the Barks scripted ones, do not contain
anything memorable.
But there's something I don't understand. Why does Gladstone insist on packing
almost every other issue with another cheesy Tony Strobl reprint. I know
there's only so much Barks they can reprint, and I know it wouldn't be
necessary to print Rosa stories, as most of those are being reprinted in WDC&S.
But there's surely SOMETHING else out there that's better. Then again, I
haven't seen most foreign stuff, so I can't say.

Just got a copy of the tombstone picture (thanks again Arthur!), and I noticed
Donald and Daisy are wearing rings.... One of the great things about Disney
comics (especially Don's work) over animation is that in animation you can
never make changes in a character's life. In other words, Disney would never
allow Donald and Daisy to be married, even if it was shown as a "whatever
happened to" scenario. Nor would they show older characters or (shock) a
tombstone! It's refreshing to see what happens when these restrictions are
lifted. It's a bold move, but after all, fortuna favet fortibus!

See ya

Dan K

Kriton:

"This is one of the stories I remember reading as a kid. When I learnt about
Carl Barks, and could tell his stories from those by other artists,
I was certain that the story I remembered reading was by Barks. When I got
to read that story in the Carl Barks library, I was surprised to learn that
although the story was by Barks, the art was by Tony Strobl. (Why is he called
"the other good duck artist", by the way? His stories are nowhere near as good
as Barks.)"

So it is published in the CBL? What album is it, in the colored version?
~Christer

>From: (Email removed) (Daniel C. Kenny)
>are so many burning questions that have been on my mind for years. I've NEVER
>written to Gladstone, and nobody I know is a duck fan, so this is really my

To make it easier for you to find the answers to your questions, I
suggest you get a DOS program called List and the old postings from this
list. That way you can use the search function and search for keywords.
It's a bit much to read through all the postings, since most of them
are of no interest.

>From: Byron Erickson <(Email removed)>
>mice and standard dog-faces, an animal can only be a person if that
>animal has a recognized personality trait. To give some examples, a

Why do you have to have a rule on this? Why can't you just look at the
story, and see if it fits? I think that would generally be much better
that to say that "Sorry, it's a great story, but it doesn't fit our
rules". F.ex., I've never understood why the mice on Granma's farm can
talk (Gus and that other guy). They're obviousy mice, and not persons
like Mickey.

Don Rosa:
Have you sold your old ink bottle yet? I'm sure you could at least get
$100 for it, I would have given it my self, if I wasn't a poor student
:)

--
Win95 - Beauty's only screen deep. [TEAM OS/2]

Hi Disney Fans!

Don just attended the Supercon comic book convention, and said to say,
"Hi from Oakland!".

Proving once again that he's the hardest working person in Duckburg,
Don drew (and drew and drew) for 9 hours on Saturday and 7 hours on
Sunday, basically non-stop, with no breaks! Not even a break to eat
lunch. (Thanks, Don -- the many happy recipients of autographs and
sketches appreciate it!)

Eric

Hiya. I just returned from Oakland / San Farncisco. I saw several Duckfans
there, but not too many since I was a last-minute guest and they didn't have
time to announce me in any ads. Otherwise, instead of 15 Disney comics fans,
I might have seen 17. (This ain't Europe, folks.) The only people who knew
in advance that I'd be there were you guys, and Eric Chung and Steven Ng
were there as polite and quiet as ever. They were nice enough to keep me
company at various times while I drew illustrations for fans. (I can't call
them "sketches" since in America, unlike Europe, I have time to spend about
an hour on each drawing and do them in full color.) But I also had a great
time as I always do in the SF-Oakland area, talking to my other Disney and
non-Disney comic fan and dealer friends there. And I was delighted to obtain
a small stack of much sought after funnybooks for my collections... some
JUMBO and JUNGLE comics to fill holes in my sets, a STAR SPANGLED COMICS
#127 (not ...WAR STORIES, but the first violume) that I've searched for for
about 25 years, and a WEIRD TALES OF THE FUTURE #3 that (I think) completes
my collection of every American horror/SF comic book ever published... plus
some others. (That was for the people on this list who, like many seem to,
think my only comic interest is Barks' Ducks; that's my main interest, but
only a fraction of my total comic interests, which include virtually
everything from the mid 40s to about 10-12 years ago when it only began to
get too sick.) But, as for Disney stuff, I did find 2 more ultra-rare Donald
Duck Cheerios 3D giveaways from 1954 plus (even better!) a pair of the
Cheerios 3D specs! And another Donald Duck bank I didn't have.

Anyway, I just read 3 Digests...

DANIEL KENNY:
YOW!!!! No one in their right mind objects to any newcomer asking questions
that have already been asked on this list!!! The only reason I mentioned it
is so that you'd know there might be stuff to read up on in the archives,
and to apologize to the other ML members that I was about to give another
long-winded answer that they've already heard/read me go through several
times already. But yeah... we should have one a' them there whatchacallems,
"FAQ" sections here. And I hope (if it's something that somebody somewhere
would want to read) Harry or someone else with too-much-free-time will
update that "Don Rosa SPEAKS" (or wotever it's called) section. But the only
thing we would object to here is rudeness, and that's virtually nonexistant
on this ML so far, as the few such cowardly verbal-vandals have gotten
cold-shouldered out the door real fast. I'm constantly amazed at what a
polite bunch of folks are on here compared to the nutballs I see on other
MLs, and I hope it can stay ever thus, knock on wood. So, don't ever be
afraid of us. Feel at home.

SHAUN AND OTHERS:
As I always say, how other people see this Duck history is up to them, but I
know how *I* see it. And when I do a Duck story I see it as a "period"
piece. They take place in the past. To me $crooge is a character whose
stories take place in the 1950s and I can only enjoy them in that sense.
It's exactly the same as I view a character like Sherlock Holmes. Those
stories were also originally created by Doyle as contemporary tales, but as
they went on through the years and as other writers took over the stories in
various genres, the stories were NOT set into modern times, but set STILL in
Victorian England. Nothing else is conceivable. I haven't the least bit of
trouble thinking of the Duck stories in that same manner, but if others have
to think of $crooge still being alive in 1996 (and being at least 120-130
years old), that's their choice (though I scratch my bean at their logic).
Now, this doesn't apply to the Disney editors who are under a whole
different set of circumstances and Disney-demands and problems in making the
stories meaningful to modern kiddies -- I'm glad I don't have to worry about
such things. And as long as I don't stich the dates of my stories IN the
stories (at least nowhere where Byron can spot it... chuckle), I can view my
stories as I wish, and the kiddie-readers can make their own assumptions.
(By the way, don't any fellow movie-buffs remind me that Universal's
Sherlock Holmes series was set in modern times... that was done by that
low-budget studio strictly to save money.)

DAVID G.: I'm possiltive that I've stated on this ML that I would never show
$crooge and Goldie interacting in the Yukon days, and I spoke of how I
designed all of "Hearts of the Yukon" in such a way that it involved them
both in a story together and yet they never quite made it to the point where
they spoke to one another. At least I'm positive that I THINK I wrote about
that on here. (I wrote all about it somewhere, and I don't inflict these
long messages an anyone else but you people!)

--------------------------------
End of Disney comics Digest V96 Issue #248
******************************************

Dwight Decker wrote:

<<I always felt it was like monkeys and people here. We have
monkeys, who are clearly animals, and we have people, who
are related but have language and technology and wear
clothes. On Earth Disney, the same thing happened but to
a lot of other animal families besides the primates. Thus
animal dogs and people dogs.>>

I agree!

Daniel Kenny wrote:

<<One of the great things about Disney comics (especially Don's work) over
animation is that in animation you can never make changes in a character's
life. In other words, Disney would never allow Donald and Daisy to be
married, even if it was shown as a "whatever happened to" scenario. Nor
would they show older characters or (shock) a tombstone! >>

But Disney *has* shown older characters in animation! Huey, Dewey and
Louie were teenagers both in classic cartoons ("Lucky Number") and a more
recent series ("Quack Pack," if memory serves). And I seem to recall that one
or two of the Bootle Beetle cartoons showed an elderly Bootle sharing
reminiscences with a Donald who looked almost $crooge's age...

Harald Havas wrote:

<<Around springtime this year we had the "Never end a sentence with a
preposition" discussion and somebody wrote a great example where a sentence
ended with three (four?) prepositions! Something like "I have the book I want
to read to my child upstairs later" but differently phrased. Could someone
please repeat it?>>

Actually, the child was, as I recall, rather picky. Someone brought up
the wrong book, and he protested, "Why did you bring the book I didn't want
to be read to out of up for? That's *five* prepositions...though Dmitri
Borgmann topped even that by having the other parent brimg up the latest
Patricia Wrightson fantasy from Australia, as yet unpublished in America. The
kid still wasn't satisfied, responding with *eight* terminal prepositions
:"Why did you bring the book I didn't want to be read to out of up from Down
Under for?"

SPEAKING OF LANGUAGE CURIOSITIES:

The version of the "Woodchuck" poem I heard--almost certainly *not* the
original--went:

"How much wood would a woodchuck chuck
If a woodchuck could chuck wood?
A woodchuck would chuck all the wood he could,
If his dentures were any good."

(Did Barks, the ex-lumberjack, ever have his own Woodchucks, Huey, Dewey and
Louie, chucking wood? I seem to recall so... or at least their helping
Donald.)

Christer Hanssen quoted Kriton:

<<I was certain that the story I remembered reading was by Barks. When I got
to read that story in the Carl Barks library, I was surprised to learn that
although the story was by Barks, the art was by Tony Strobl. (Why is he
called "the other good duck artist", by the way? His stories are nowhere near
as good
as Barks.)">>

*Who* referred to Strobl as "the other good duck artist?" I can see giving
that title to Rosa, or even Van Horn or Scarpa, but hardly Strobl. (Even in a
day when neither Rosa nor Van Horn had drawn the Ducks, surely there were
other, better artists who'd done so, like Taliaferro and even Paul Murry.

Thore Harald Hoye quoted Byron Erickson:
{...mice and standard dog-faces, an animal can only be a person if that
animal has a recognized personality trait. To give some examples, a...}

Actually, Disney *did* have a con-man fox, Honest John, in PINOCCHIO,
though of course the movie was only following Collodi's novel in choosing his
species...not to mention that of Jiminy Cricket...

<<Why do you have to have a rule on this? Why can't you just look at the
story, and see if it fits? I think that would generally be much better that
to say that "Sorry, it's a great story, but it doesn't fit our rules". F.ex.,
I've never understood why the mice on Granma's farm can talk (Gus and that
other guy). They're obviousy mice, and not persons like Mickey.>>

Not only would it create confusion around the farm (what with Gus Mouse
and Gus Goose both there), but it created more with the Gottfredson strip,
which also featured the characters as mice Mickey's size! As Dwight said, I
suspect the fact that both series were trying to reflect the then-current
CINDERELLA played a part.

WHICH REMINDS ME...

Didn't Lucifer the cat also appear in at least one Grandma Duck story,
despite his fall from the bell-tower in the movie? All right, you could
follow Byron's rule about Disney animals always following their species'
folklore and argue that he either (a) landed on his feet or (b) lost only one
of his nine lives, but the Queen/Witch from SNOW WHITE also reappeared. All
of which indicates that in Disney, as in most comics, one need only accept
the permanent death of a character, especially a villain, if there's a
body...and not always then. So Don, I repeat...I say both Donaldo El Quacko
and Cad Ali Cad could be brought back to life; what say you do a story with
both of them and Donald driving poor $crooge crazy??

Rich