Keskustelujen arkisto

TODD:
YOU are lettering "Pizen Bluff"? Not a computer? I had no word on that! O
joy. O rapture. It will look GOOD for a change! (And now you can sort of
figure that you got paid for the posters that you did for that story for me
for free!) By the way, send me a note if you'd like to do one more small
sign for the story I'm working on now.

MARCO:
Since I don't know how else to contact you, I'll say here that I just
received the package of ZIO PAPERONEs that you sent. Thanks! But had I
failed to tell you that I needed a #80, or were you unable to find that one.
That ZP continues to be beautiful! They really do a great job with all the
special features and articles about the artists. And those Marco Rota covers
based on my stories are so wonderful it almost makes me weep!

JONATHAN:
Yes, you are correct! I see my $crooge-50th-Anniversary story as taking
place in 1952 or thereabouts, 50 years after $crooge moved to Duckburg. How
can I show Flintheart and Magica as being old enemies when they first
appeared in, what?, 1957 and 1965? Well, because in my view of the time
frame of these stories, it's simply sometime in the 50s, no exact date. That
way I don't worry about whether something is a bit out of order. Even Barks'
1960s stories I can see as being tales left from the 50s. I knew this as far
back as when I did "Return to Plain Awful", a story I pictured was taking
place around 1950, just a few years after "Lost in the Andes", but which
also used Flintheart.

CHRISTER:
Yes, I DO see that Yukon-$crooge/Goldie cover as a special scene. But it's
sort of a pose that takes place out of reality, as cover scenes often do. I
don't know of any instance where Goldie would have been dressed like that
with $crooge in the mountains. And it's not like a scene from some story
where they are interacting.

KRITON:
I just received the KOMIX #101 that you sent. Thanks to you, too! But I
can't be nice and agree with what you think were mistakes in "Universal
Solvent".
The earth's mantle is most definitely solid rock. If there were nothing
above the molten core except the crust, the earth would pop like a soap
bubble due to the gravitational pull of the moon and such!
And what made you think the solvent blob or the Ducks and their platform
were in freefall? Why would that be so? The solvent was eating its way down
through the earth... it was never falling. It was descending rapidly, but
never falling, and never in a vacuum as in the idealized situation your
physics teacher described. And contrary to what you say, I DID show that the
blob travelled a bit further and even floated around a bit after it reached
the earth's center, hollowing out that huge chamber.
Also my story made it clear that the Ducks were on a platform with wheels
along the sides that were lowering them slowly. If you'll doublecheck,
you'll see that was so. And even if they were falling when they appraoched
the core, I also showed that it was not a vacuum in that region, so that
even if they WERE in freefall the air would have slowed them down to a crawl
since it had no way to escape except around the edges of their platform.
I think you were reading too fast! But I'll figure that was because my story
made you so excitable that you panicked... and I'll take that as a
compliment...? And yes, the Ducks escape at the beginning of part 3, and
their means of escape is right there in front of your eyes in those scenes.
Can you figure it out?

JONATHAN:

I thoroughly enjoyed what you called "scientific gobbly-gook." I'd have
liked to have put my two cents in, but you then seconded a matter brought
up earlier, and which is more pertinent to Gladstone: doing the Mickey
strips in black and white.

That was something we were considering at one time, even as a sort of
"Floyd Gottfredson Library" along the lines of the original Carl Barks
Library. Sadly, the sales performances of the Little Lulu Library, Mickey
Mouse in Color, and our Mickey Mouse comic book all indicated a no-go on
such a project. As you and most everyone now knows, we've been trying just
to keep Mickey from disappearing from American comics altogether these past
few years.

Probably the Mickey strip currently running in Walt Disney's Comics and
Stories should be printed in black and white, just not in Comics and
Stories. This would not only, in my opinion, be aesthetically jarring in an
otherwise full color comic, but would definitely be seen by many of our
customers as a blatant rip-off in a prestige format book with a $6.95 cover
price.

If I may be permitted an aside: we do have our dreams here at Gladstone,
and it's interesting how often our dreams coincide with the desires of
readers who take the time and trouble to clue us in. Even Disney has shown
themselves to be in favor of many of these possibilities, if only the
marketplace could or would support them. It's been endlessly frustrating
that money should stand in the way of some truly wondrous Disney comics
projects, but, like it or not, money is what fuels a business. What one
must never do is dwell too much on that, or it becomes a rote excuse that
prevents anything from ever happening, whether the money's there or not.

Hm. I think I'm preaching to myself here, as much as to anyone else. Well,
so be it.

DON:

Having heard and read much on your perspective of the Disney duck universe,
I've gotten the impression that you (though hardly you alone) feel Barks
pretty much ran out of steam by the late 1950s. I kinda wonder about that,
since I was deeply impressed by what Barks produced in the 1960s (when I
was old enough to start reading comics). Believe it or not, I am a Barks
fan because of "Island in the Sky" and "Hall of the Mermaid Queen."

TO THOSE KEEPING SCORE:

Walt Disney's Comics and Stories #609 and #610 will both sport a March
cover date. This is not an error. Now that WDC&S has gone monthly, we have
decided to move the book's cover date a month closer to it's on sale date,
which is what this hiccup will accomplish, enabling #611 to have an April
cover date, #612 a May cover date, and so on.

Gary

****************************
"Frogs? I don't get it."
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------
Gladstone on the Web: http://www.hamlco.com/bhc/
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------

On Nov 14, 5:25pm, Harald Havas wrote:
> Subject: Re: Disney comics Digest V96 #250

> - Chip'n'Dale (German Ahoernchen und Behoernchen, pun see below*),

Since the pun behind the names of Chip & Dale is a furniture
style (Chippendale), do you think Frau Fuchs might have
considered Bieder & Meier as possible names? For that matter,
if Chippendale is at all known in Germany, Chip und Dale
might have been possible. Anyway, Ahoernchen and Behoernchen
aren't bad, making an absurd logic out of treating something
as a series even though it really isn't one. (Like the joke
here about not wanting to see the movie Malcolm X because
I didn't see the first nine. Which isn't all that absurd--
the British movie George III really did have to be retitled
The Madness of King George for release in the US because
it was thought American audiences would wonder about the other
two movies they hadn't seen.)

--Dwight Decker

JONATHAN

Roberta Gregory is probably most famous for her character Bitchy Bitch which
is featured in the series NAUGHTY BITS (20 issues so far, published by
Fantagraphics; there are also some TPB collections), but my personal favorite
is ARTISTIC LICENTIOUSNESS (2 issues and the third was just solicited in the
last PREVIEWS).
BTW, Roberta did a drawing of Daisy Duck as "Bitchy Daisy" for a friend of
mine and said her father would probably have a fit if he saw this drawing.
We will probably print it sooner or later in a future issue of DER DONALDIST.

Keep on duckin'!
Juergen Gebhardt

--------------------------------
End of Disney comics Digest V96 Issue #251
******************************************

DAVE R.:
What on earth is this about sparing me embarrassment? I don't recall
commenting on any specific story you've done since I don't recall seeing any
Duck story using a weasel. I was saying that there are guidelines as to what
sorts of animals can be shown as "intelligent" in a Duck comic. Byron came
on here as well, and stated the exact same thing... why didn't you disagree
with him? There are a very few animals that can be used judiciously in Duck
or Mouse stories due to very familiar expressions... "wise as an owl",
"slick as a weasel". Personally, I wouldn't allow a weasel-man in a Duck
comic, but the use of such would go along with what Byron stated as the
guideline. You like to go by what Barks says? Barks says his were stories of
people drawn as animals -- that's why he might draw a person like a greedy
pig... and on VERY rare occassions, he would perhaps do a sneaky rat or he
might have chosen a lying weasel. They are people drawn as the animals VERY
commonly known for that personality trait. But to do something like draw a
raccoon like a man is done in funny-animal comics. There'd be no reason for
it in a Duck comic. You cannot treat Duck comics like mainstream
funny-animal comics since they aren't. If you're saying it's okay to put a
weasel-guy in a Duck comic, I'll grant you that possibility. But if you're
saying that it's completely fine to stick a frog-person or a rabbit-man or a
bear-guy, or any sort of humanized raccoon or skunk or squirrel or cow or
tiger or (I could go on all night), you're wrong. Give it a try and you'll
be stopped. Ask Byron if you won't. Just as I said before, you can't
suddenly insert something like a penguin-man into a Duck comic anymore than
you could do so into a Batman comic. Go back and read Byron's description of
the guidelines, and disagree with him.
.

Don Rosa writes:
> you can't suddenly insert something like a penguin-man into a Duck
> comic anymore than you could do so into a Batman comic.
>
Er, **isn't** there "something like a penguin-man" in the Batman comics
already? :) I suppose you mean that you couldn't do that in the
Superman comics. Of course, you **could** (if for some strange reason
you wanted to), by blaming it on Mr. Mxyzptlk. Come to think of it,
back in the "Silver Age" when red Kryptonite could change Superman into
a half-ant, or whatever, a story with a talking penguin would be just
another day in Metropolis. Hey, if a dog can fly in those stories, why
can't a penguin talk? Ah, the suspension of disbelief in the wonderful
world of funnybooks!

Anyway, if Brazil's Disney comics can have a parrot as their major hero,
they ought to be able to make use of a penguin, too. Just introduce him
as their friend from Patagonia. After all, a penguim **is** a type of
waterfowl, so he wouldn't be totally out of place in the Duck universe.
However, maybe any penguin character would of necessity look pretty much
like either Chilly Willy or Tennessee Tuxedo and thus would violate
copyright protection.

Wilmer Rivers

(Email removed) (Ole R. Nielsen):
re: Cavazzano's "Casablanca":
ON> A friend of mine claimed [...] it was done in gray tones, which is
ON> confirmed by a few panels in Topolino #2000.

What I saw was in gray tones as well, but it was xeroxes, so I don't
know about the original. Further, and this could just be my vastly
imperfect memory, it had a kind of watercolor feel to it, like washes
applied in layers to deepen the darker elements of a shape which often
had lean ovular suggestions to them. Whatever, it was wonderful design.

ON> It is one of the few stories Giorgio Cavazzano both wrote and drew,
ON> er... scripted and directed? If there's a chance Gladstone can fit
ON> it in, its code is I 1657-A.

As I say, I think it's the type of story that would bring critical
notice to anyone who reprinted it in the U.S., but I have little
knowlege of Gladstone's demographics (though I'm convinced kids of all
ages would love the work on its own intrinsic merits).

(Email removed) (Gary Leach):
GL> There's no list of can and cannots at Disney, either. What Byron
GL> said about foxes as persons seeming "wrong" to him is right to the
GL> point; it's subjective, often beyond explaining, and must be left
GL> to writers, editors, and readers to sort out on a case-by-case
GL> basis.

Yeah, that's my take on it, too. If the character design suits the
creation, it's appropriate. Even air-tight logic can be argued with
since not all reality is ratiocentric and accessible through logic,
which is an organizing force for expression, not the basis of what is
and is not. Nor do I choose to use logic as the ultimate arbiter of an
athestic (though I have often in past).

I like some fundamental quirkiness and unpredictability, since to me
that is more life-like! Certainly Barks had great fun skewering standard
story-telling verisimilitudes with characters like Gladstone Gander who
is nothing but a walking violation of deus ex machina. But that's why
Barks' stories often had that feel of a fable, of the fabulous,
precsiely because he adopted more fairy tale type conventions, and then
stood them on their heads.

But even Barks says that he's not the template, doesn't want to be
regarded as such, and in fact even fears becoming such. He like Eisner,
and Da Vinci even, recognize that to be most alive ones creations need
to draw from life itself, and not yield to the temptation to be
derivative of someone else's creation.

(Email removed) (Thore Harald Hoye):
TH> Why do you have to have a rule on this? Why can't you just look at
TH> the story, and see if it fits? I think that would generally be much
TH> better that to say that "Sorry, it's a great story, but it doesn't
TH> fit our rules".

Bless you, my son... Maybe you could apply to Egmont for an editorial
position and worm your way into surverting the dominant paradigm? I
joke, but actually, if I could never use a metaphoric anthropomorphic
again, it wouldn't damage my story-telling aproach, it's just fun for me
and if it passes muster with the editor's sense of story-telling, and
the readers enjoy it, then we all make out just that little bit extra.

TH> I've never understood why the mice on Granma's farm can talk

Nor I. I just accepted it as an imponderable given. I suppose though
that one could make the logical argument that they have residual magical
intelligence invested in them left over from the fairy god mother, much
like Magica's spells work in a Duck universe (to me, another
imponderable given). Regardless, I think Gus and Jaq have been
"disappeared" from the current Egmont universe. ->snif<-

Harald Havas <(Email removed)>:
HH> BTW, just recently in an Egmont-Donald-story a big ape appeared as
HH> Donald's boss - so how rigid are those rules Byron quoted anyway?

WHAT?! An ape as a human? Why that makes no sense at all!

[Sorry, jus' kiddin' around.]

But that's what's wacky about how subjective this is, as Gary Leach
points out. For some reason which makes no sense even to me, I can't
imagine using an ape/person in a story, and so wouldn't. On the other
hand, it just doesn't bother me it doesn't make sense. And it doesn't
bother me that someone else would, or that someone else wouldn't. Or
that some day I might change my mind.

Harry Fluks <(Email removed)>:
HF> Shouldn't the "Why" be "What"? (Why did you do it? What did you do
HF> it for?)

Well, yes, actually. You have a very good ear for these things, Harry!

--
riverrun past Eve's and Adam's from swerve of shore to bend of bay
(Email removed) -=*=- http://users.aol.com/dcrawson/home.htm