Keskustelujen arkisto

JONATHAN:

>I've had an idea--how about reprinting "Pluto Saves the Ship"? That's pretty
>significant historically, and it hasn't been reprinted much. Oh, wait--the
>word "ship" is in the title--that means that it takes place on the ocean
>until it comes to an island, where a LONG cannibal sequence takes place, and
>so the story is banned, right?

"Pluto Saves the Ship," is not, as far as we know at this point in time,
banned by Disney from being reprinted by Gladstone, their most beloved US
comics licensee...:) My own speculation is that if we were to attempt to
put it in a newsstand comic, it would not be approved, but it might be
approved if we wanted to run it in WDC&S (chance: good) or an album
(chance: better).

TO ALL:

It has finally begun to sink into my lead-like skull that this mailing list
is a mighty powerful Disney comics research engine (and not too shabby at
physics, either). I therefore have a question I would like to submit: has
"Pluto Saves the Ship" appeared in color anywhere, ever?

Gary

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

Oh. Sorry about this. I'm answering List members' questions here today, but
nothing has anything to do with Disney comics. Skip ahead if you like...

JONATHAN:
What's this about me being a "3rd generation American"? What makes you think
that? That would mean both my parents AND grandparents were born in America!
My father was born in Maniago, Italy... near Venice. I'm a FIRST generation
American.

HARALD:
I bet I know a better "Don Rosa Twin", and hope you've heard of him. He's a
cult hero of movie special effects wizardry named MIKE JITTLOV. In fact,
he's even better known as "The Wizard of Speed and Time", a low-low-budget
movie he made in the late 70s about his true-life adventures dealing with
movie-studio weasels. The Don Rosa and Mike Jittlov of 1978 were as close to
being exact doubles as two unrelated hoomin beans are likely to get.
Strangely, I also share many of his hobbies and philosophies. I have a LD
copy of that rare movie, and would absolutely still have it regardless of
what the guy looks like. But when I watch that movie and Jittlov looks
directly at the camera, I always get a quick lil' jolt because I have the
sensation of looking into a mirror. (The guy has also had troubles with a
certain corporation... another coincidence.)
After almost 20 years, we don't look so much alike any longer, our balding
patterns going in different directions. But... 2 years ago at the San Diego
Comicon, I was walking briskly (as I always do) through the meeting-room
area and passed someone hurrying in the other direction... then the two of
us stopped and turned and stared at each other. It was Mike Jittlov! (And I
was me.) We still looked enough alike to make each other do a double-take.
List member Barry Branvold walked up later and said to me "Hey, you didn't
tell me your twin brother would be here", so he can attest to this (as he
can attest to other realities of other conventions). But I had a nice long
chat with Mike J. and we'll try to get together at another SD Con someday.
The coincidences continue: List member Dan Shane told me that one of his
company bosses, who had never met or seen me, but to whom Dan apparently had
told lots about me, returned from a trip and told Dan that he thought that
he'd sat next to Don Rosa on an airplane, judging by the way the guy looked
and what he talked about. And Dan determined with little trouble and with
great certainty that it had been Jittlov returning from some SF convention.
It's a weird world, eh?

DANNY C.:
Whoa... what are you saying?!? If someone could be at the earth's core, he
would be crushed by gravity? For heaven's sake, why? The gravity results
from the earth's mass, and at the center, with all of the earth's mass above
you in all directions, you'd be weightless.
And the mantle is solid. Sure there are volcanoes, so there are obviously
intrusions into and through the mantle by magma. And there is a sort of
"liquid movement" in the solid mantle due to the tremendous pressures down
thar', but the mantle itself *is* solid.
Why do you say the solid rock around a tiny hollow in the earth's core would
collapse? Even if there was downward garvity (which is equal in all *upward*
directions at that point) the hollow spot would stay together simply because
it's solid. Or... are you still working from your strange idea that there is
some form of super-gravity down there?
And I explained in the story that the shaft did not collapse because it was
formed of super-dense residue from the Universal Solvent. Yes, this is the
only part of all this that is not actual fact, but it's a good SF-ey way to
explain a solid tube remaining in the flowing Outer Core of the earth, which
is the only way my story is feasible. Yes, get that story back out and
reread it... no mistakes there. (None yet found, anyway.)

Hi!

I haven't had very much time lately for my e-mail, so this mail will
have some replies to some older mails. The oldest one is from almost
a month ago.

MARCO BARLOTTI, 25-10-1996:

> How can WE (the LIST!) let one of us (Daniel) incidentally say that he
> has been "busy making a <Barks Encyclopaedia> which should contain every
> name and place mentioned in a Barks-story" and let him go like this?
> [...] Daniel, pleeeeeease, be a good guy and send us whatever you have
> done. From your ACME research, it seems such a good work it does NOT
> deserve to be lost.

I've been working on this thing about five years ago and it's very far
from finished. After some time I decided to stop with it. Maybe I
shouldn't have done that, but hey... it was at the time that I said to
Harry that he was crazy even *trying* to make a database of all the
Disney-stories in the world. ;-)

Another bad thing about this encyclopaedia, besides being only the
beginning, is that it's in Dutch. (The catchwords are of course in
English, but the descriptions are in Dutch.)

If it's useful to make such a beast as a 'Bark encyclopaedia', maybe some
of us are willing to contribute?

ARTHUR DE WOLF, 28-10-1996:

> I'm also planning to make a section on my website, dedicated to odd or
> special covers, like a Dutch Barks-cover that has never been printed
> anywhere else before, [...]

The Barks-cover you referring to has been published in at least one other
place than only Holland (I don't know where, though). It's the "hammocks"
cover of which Barks only did the pencil-work. It still hasn't been
published as a Gladstone-cover, even the CBL didn't print it.

Does Gladstone know this cover exists? Can we expect it in the near
future, Gary?

IMO, the artist who did the inkwork did his job very well.

> [...] or Dutch covers with Ducks that are smoking, stuff like that!

There indeed has been one Duck-cover on which Daisy is holding a sigaret,
this one has been printed in 1971. This was at a time in which the editor
didn't seem to know this was a bit 'un-Disney'.

It's quite harmless though, Daisy is only holding the sigaret to look
like 'a lady' in the mirror.

In 1966 there has been a Dutch Duck-cover in which Donald is shown with a
glass of beer and a plate with spaghetti (English word?). If I remember
well, he's a waiter there.

HARRY FLUKS, 01-11-1995:

>> Jippes told me that he hasn't drawn any Barks-Junior Woodchuck-stories.
>> And he won't make any more either.

> Mau Heymans picked out three JW stories, and will be redrawing them
> early next year.

I hope he'll do those a lot better than the story "Music Hath Charms".

> BTW: Jippes also told me that Barks made a new script and that he was
> asked to draw the story. But he thinks Barks' agent is making too much
> money with this stuff. So he hasn't said "yes" yet.

Who is making too much money, according to Jippes? Barks or Barks' agent?
Or both? I hope it 's only or mostly Barks. There are different ways to
look at this new Barks-stuff, but one I'm thinking of now is that it could
be a very good thing that Barks is getting some new money out of his work
on the Ducks: It's still only a tip if one looks at how rich he could have
been if he at least had gotten a few percents of the royalties on Scrooge
McDuck.

I hope this new story will be better than "Horsing Around", though.

DANIEL KENNY, 30-10-1996:

What a nice first name you have! ;-)

> 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.

The reason why the treasure is pictured on the wall is that Scrooge
does own the treasure, the big problem is that he can't *reach* it.

RICH MORRISSEY, 05-11-1996:

> I wonder if the clan McElk might have been his own tribute to his
> earlier character Mooseface McElk? Mooseface was a moose who lived
> next door to Barney Bear in the series Barks drew (rarely wrote,
> you've told me) for OUR GANG...

Barks both wrote and drew most of his Barney-stories, in a few exceptions
he only did the art but also some rewriting on the script (for which he
was paid). In one of these stories, OG 31, Mooseface McElk appears for
the first time (that is, if I checked it right).

Does this mean Mooseface McElk isn't a Barks character? Does someone
know if he has appeared in an earlier (non-Barks) story than OG 31?

> Harald Havas quoted Arthur:
>
> <Attributing titles to Walt Disney involves choosing the correct
> nomenclature. The words "Walt Disney's", "Walt Disney's classics" and
> "Disney's Classics" apply to all features and characters created before
> Walt Disney's death in December, 1966. The last feature falling under
> this category is 'The Aristocats'.>
>
> How so, since Walt Disney died in 1966 and THE ARISTOCATS didn't come
> out until 1970? I realize the movies were generall in pre-production for
> some time before they appeared, which would justify putting Walt's name
> on THE JUNGLE BOOK (1967, said to be the last picture on which he had
> personal input), but four years seems a bit much.

I've read that Walt Disney agreed with "The Aristocats" on his death-bed,
after seeing a series of drawings by Ken Anderson. (My source for this is
a book by Christopher Finch.) So, this movie could still be a Walt Disney
movie in a way.

"Jungle Book" was the last movie Walt produced, though he died before
it was finished.

DANIEL KENNY, 09-11-1996:

> I think you guys can understand that it's difficult to be a newcomer.
> There are so many burning questions that have been on my mind for years.

Don't hesitate, just ask them.

> I don't want to become known as the "stupid new guy" whose questions are
> never taken seriously. I like the list too much to develop that kind of
> reputation too early on.

I think that Per says it at its best in his Welcome-message:

P> You don't have to be an expert to have something interesting to say.
P> And besides, we need some people to ask the questions so we can show
P> off. :-)

> I've already started going through some of the archived digests, so
> hopefully, I should feel caught up soon.

Please remember that it's not a condition to know what's in the archives
before you ask a question.

HARRY FLUKS, 09-11-1996 (2 mails):

> In 1994, I compiled a file with Don Rosa's comments, sorted by story.
> One of the purposes was that people could read that file and not bother
> Don with the same questions again. Unfortunately, I haven't updated that
> file since. Don writes a *lot* to this list, and selecting, sorting and
> editing takes a lot of time...

Maybe this file can be updated quickly by just compiling every letter Don
wrote since that time? (Maybe you know how to do this automatically?)

BTW. When this file exists, I think editing it will not be too difficult.

> I kind of like the idea that "Aunt Daisy" really is an aunt of the
> nephews (HDL). But there's one minor drawback: April, May and June
> would be (real) cousins of HDL.

Why is that a drawback?

RICH MORRISSEY, 17-11-1996:

> I don't think Barks ever used an ape/person in a story, but Gottfredson
> did a number of times: Professors Ecks, Doublex and Triplex, Dr. Vultur,
> and, I believe others.

There are two (or more?) occassions were Barks used an 'ape-human':

WDC 63, the lost dollar bill story. One of the crooks is an ape.

WDC 206, Donald running a hotel. There's an ape tramping the potatoe
peelings into the trash cans. (Or am I the only one who thinks it a
ape-human?)

Here are some more animal-humans by Barks, other than pigs and dogs:

US 3, the spinach story. Doesn't the crook McViper look more like a
wolf than a dog?

OS 408, "The Golden Helmet". Doesn't lawyer Sharker look like a big rat?
To me he looks more like a rat than a dog.

WDC 270, "Jinxed Jalopy Race". There's an owl as judge, he's even given a
full page in the story. (There are more stories with owls as judges, for
example "A Letter to Santa", the WDC 149 flipism story and the WDC 168
chipmunk story.) Btw, what kind of bird is the one who Gladstone is
kissing at the end of the WDC 270 story?

US 64, "Treasure of Marco Polo". Wahn Beeg Rhat is a rat.

WDC 244, "Missile Fizzle". Professor Slyrat is a rat.

WDC 278, "Have Gun Will Dance". The spy is a rat.

OS 1055, "The Double Date". In this story there's "Rockhead Rooster",
an old pen pal of the hen Clara. This is an art-only story, so it
probably won't count, but I think it's nice to see how a Barks human-
rooster would be *if* he had made up one himself.

US 10, "Heirloom Watch". The barristers are eagles (?). This story was
already mentioned by someone here.

WDC 308, "The Beaty Business". In this story there's a women as human-
elephant and on the background a women as donkey. This story was also
already mentioned here by someone.

Some (art-only) Grandma Duck stories use characters like Zeke Wolf, the
Bre'r Fox and even Dumbo. These stories also probably don't count, but
somehow I liked it to see Zeke appearing. (Maybe it's because he's used
a lot in the Dutch Disney comics, some of his stories are very good IMO).

Weren't there also some Peg Leg Pete characters? I know there's the
WDC 132 Grandma Duck story and the WDC 269 "Log Jockey" story, but the
first one is an art-only story while in the latter it isn't quite obvious
if the Pete-character is a cat.

BTW. Besides human-ducks, human-dogs and human-pigs, Barks also used a
lot of human-birds of which I don't know which animal they precisely are.
They mostly have a 'sharp' beak, like the professors in the US 8 cabbage
story and the US 37 "Cave of Ali Baba" story. The most famous human-bird
of this kind is of course Gyro Gearloose. (A long time ago there had been
an agreement here that Gyro is a giant chicken, but I can't believe that.)
Maybe these characters should fit in the category "human-Barks-birds"?

Well, I think this will be enough replies for now? ;-)

Greetings,

--- Daniel

"Making a list of all Disney comics? Sounds to me like going to
describe every sand-grain on a beach!" [Or something like this.]

Something I said to Harry, back in 1992, when he had plans
to make a database. ;-)

Don Rosa wrote; <<and this is a silly
little matter, but it's one that I always thought was understood by all
readers of Donald Duck comic books, and I see it isn't. I think a large part
of the impact of these adventures is when the readers know that these are
not typical funny-animal comics like Warner Bros. or most any other Disney
comics. >>
An interesting comment, and one that I personaly thinks shows more of your
disdain for non-Barks material. I, personaly, have never met anyone who
thinks the Duck comics are not funny animal comics. Better done funny animal
comics, but funny animal comics.
<<I can only say that I don't recant a syllable I've said about any of this.
Why do I take this so seriously? Because Barks' Duck world is precious to me
and I hate to see it misunderstood.>>
I'm sorry that you think I'm misunderstanding, but then I think you are.
Funny animal comics are good comics. Nothing bad about them.

<<Bugs Bunny is a funny animal. Daffy Duck
is a funny animal. Chip and Dale are funny animals. Donald Duck is a human
being. >>
And I disagree strongly with you. If it looks like a duck, and quacks
like a duck; it's a duck. Actually that's a joke, Bugs and Daffy hardly act
like any rabbits or ducks that I've seen. Chip and Dale are probably more
like chipmunks, so I'll accept them as humerous animals. Bugs and Daffy are
people.
<<The Duck universe is separate from any other Disney universe. Chip
and Dale do not exist in the Duck world because there chipmunks are simply
dumb animals. Pablo the penguin lived in an iglou in his Disney story, but
in a Duck comic penguins are penguins. The prehistorical "Donald Duck Finds
Pirate Gold" obviously doesn't count -- regardless of its use of the
intelligent Parrot. In Duck comics parrots are just parrots and that's that.
I can easilly see how people reading this discussion who aren't completely
familiar with these Duck stories would find this all rather puzzling. >>
Actually, when you say Duck comics, you mean Barks Duck comics. Jose C.
from South America has been in Duck comics, has have chip and dale (as
animals). Is Mickey Mouse a mouse? Goofy a dog? Mighty Mouse a mouse?
I'm very familiar with Barks duck work. I have most of the originals, the
collections, and multitudes of reprints. And I still say Donald's a funny
animal.
<<If a
Duck can be talking/intelligent in these comics, why not a turkey or a
sparrow or a vulture? Why not a mouse or a chipmunk or a cat? The short
answer is that that's just the way it is. That's the way it's always been.>>
Which is fine... if you want to say that you feel that what Barks did is the
only way that you'll do it, and the only way that you prefer it be done;
fine. But it's still funny animals. And Donald has met Mickey Mouse in non
Barks stories
<< The Duck universe was a world that placed Donald
as a human being into a world of real people, and was slightly nudged by the
Dell editors of the 40s into the use of black noses on the other humans and
pig-snouts on a rare few others. But those are not dogs or pigs, they are
people. >>
As are Mickey Mouse, SuperMouse, Goofy, et al. these are all people drawn
to look like animals.

I don't think that Don and I will ever see eye to eye on this; which is
okay, no one can see eye to eye with everyone on everything. But, Don
pushed my button; with what I see (hopefully wrongly) as a blanket putdown
of all non-Barks Ducks and Mice as merely "funny animals" , which are
somehow less good (not because of talent or achievement) but because of the
genre they're from.
:::::
My comments on Mickey or Donald being black were meant mostly as one of the
great achievement of these types of comics; as readers can picture their own
race and ethnic backgrond on these characthers, thus increasing the chances
for identification. However I was struck by the comments about white gloves
and blackface. I've watched alot of blackface material in the last couple of
years (all the Jolson films, most of the Eddie Cantors, even Bing Crosby and
Judy Garland!), but I've never connected the white gloves to Mickey Mouse.
A coincidence - or more? Certainly I feel sure that Disney and Iwerks saw
the early Jolson films (first USA full length film with some singing and
talking). 1928, the year that Mickey Mouse came out; there were only ten
all-talking pictures (all by Warners).
::::::::::: Steven Rowe

DAVID
>The German weekly is wrong about the first appearance of Chip and
Dale over there. I've got a book reprinting the first four issues of MICKY
MAUS, and they're in one story -- under the names "Schlipp und Schlupp."
Now is THAT a pun on anything, or just phonetic (like it sounds to
me)?<

"Schlipp und Schlupp" is no pun. It sounds quite silly and means
nothing. I'm glad they dropped that! Maybe the date they gave on the
card was their first appearance with their _proper names_?

CHRISTOPHER (wrote on the animals in Duck-comics problem)
>Maybe once my sensibilities have matured, I'll be able to get more
irate.
:-))))))))))))))))))))))))) !

CHARACTER CARDS
Finally Ludwig von Drake! And as we all _know_ ;-) by now, he's stated as
being born in Vienna! (Austria that is...)
Furthermore, Grandma is given as his aunt(?), his favorite hobbies
are "anything ending with -logy" (I like that) , his fav. saying is "For every
problem there is an unpractical solution", he loves to climb
mountains (and YES! in one picture he is shown with a "Gamsbart"
instead of a feather on his hat, which totally supports my
theories!), his first Germ. app. is given with 1962 and his sign is
Aquarius (a tipical sign for a scientist, I might add).
Now all I (still) want to know is, if he's Austrian in the US-original
too..
The second card features the Three Little Pigs. They are Sagittarius,
have a nephew named Sylvester(?), and their first G. app. is 1951
(= year of the first post-war Disney-comics in Germany)

Both cards feature a "cross-breed" scene BTW:
LVD is shown talking to Goofy...(!)
and the Pigs trap BB-Wolf with the help of Gyro (!!!)
Oh well.

D94177 (Micky Maus 48/96)...
... is astonishing material! It's a Mickey story in which he tells the
story of a magician called "Maustradamus" who is Mickey in the gown
of "Sorcerer's apprentice". The story features Clarabella and Horace
as king and queen, Gooy, Minnie, Pluto and Ferdie(?) as supporting
cast and an old Gottfredson-villain(!) [kinda Popeye-looking dog(?)]
- as an evil king (with Pete as aid). It continues to have a big
fight between Mickey and another sorcerer with "Green Lantern" like
effects - and the whole point of the story is not to have prejudice
against people and ...SCIENCE! And it has the (off-panel) "death" of
the evil sorcerer too (turned into a fly, he's hit by a giant fly-flap)
It's well drawn, truly strange, but not bad at all - esp. in the use of
the Mickey cast... Impressing.

Harald

--- (Harald Havas) (Email removed)

DON:
> Well, yes, Frank was here for 3 days over the weekend. He was mostly trying
> to gather info for the book he and his friends are writing about me (!).

Is this the same book that Didier Ghez is working on? (Uhm.. "on which DG is
working?")

HARALD:
> If you go and see/rent "Antonia's World" the Dutch Oscar winning
> film

Are you sure that's Dutch? I never heard of it...

> it contains *gasp* nudity!

That *does* sound like a Dutch movie, though. 8-)

> So if no Dutch member tells me this cap is tipical Boor, then my
> question stands...

Why would a Dutch member know anything about the Boers'
caps? Isn't that like asking an Englishman about Australian
folklore? Or asking an Austrian about something in Germany?

ERIC:
> After Gottfredson, however, Mickey's stories seem to have lost a dab
> of their charm. Good writers and artists are desperately needed to
> revive his stories. Any volunteers?!?

You should read the new stories by Erickson and Gerstein! Especially
the ones with Ferioli's art.

Talking about Gerstein:

DAVID:

> How DID the witch survive her fall? (Other than the obvious,
> crawling back to her hideout covered with bumps and bruises? ;-) I imagine
> that this same Italian story explains why she never turned back into Queen
> Grimhilde -- perhaps she was now unable to?

(BTW, we're talking about an Italian story here, from Topolino 1571.)
The Witch falls on a branch, and then lands softly on some bushes.
Two crooks save her. Meanwhile, the Witch's hunter (?) burns down her castle,
including all magic formulas and potions. That's why she always has to stay
a witch.

KRITON:
> I don't know if [the Ducktales Golmgold] is different from Barks' Glomgold,
> but he's certainly nastier: In one of Disney's Ducktales comics books,
> there is a sequence where Glomgold threatens to foreclose on
> everything Carl Barks(!) owns, including his chicken farm in San Jacinto!

Which story is that?

(BTW: I like your signature quotes. They are often very funny.)

DANIEL (van Eijmeren, that is):

> If it's useful to make such a beast as a 'Bark encyclopaedia', maybe some
> of us are willing to contribute?

First thing you need is a *coordinator*: someone who divides the work,
and sees to it that no double work is done, and that the work follows some
consistency rules. (Don't look at *me*, I'm still busy indexing the grains
of sand on our local beach...)

> The Barks-cover you referring to has been published in at least one other
> place than only Holland (I don't know where, though). It's the "hammocks"
> cover of which Barks only did the pencil-work. It still hasn't been
> published as a Gladstone-cover, even the CBL didn't print it.

That cover was inked by Ulrich Schroeder, and published in one of
the German fanzines "Der (Hamburger) Donaldist". At least that's what Thom
Roep told me. Can anyone (from Germany or Austria 8-) confirm this?
Was Barks' original sketch also published?

Harry> BTW: Jippes also told me that Barks made a new script and that he was
Harry> asked to draw the story. But he thinks Barks' agent is making too much
Harry> money with this stuff. So he hasn't said "yes" yet.
> Who is making too much money, according to Jippes? Barks or Barks' agent?

Barks' agent. And Jippes himself wouldn't get enough money.

>> Anybody notice in the picture "Anything but Those" in US 300, that [...]
> The reason why the treasure is pictured on the wall is that Scrooge
> does own the treasure, the big problem is that he can't *reach* it.

The threasure is not *in a picture* on the wall. The treasure *is* on the
wall.
DON: we still have no explanation for that...

> Does this mean Mooseface McElk isn't a Barks character? Does someone
> know if he has appeared in an earlier (non-Barks) story than OG 31?

According to Mike Barrier's book, McElk is a character invented by
Gil Turner, and his first appearance is indeed Our Gang #31.
Barks: "I always welcomed scripts from him, they were rich in gags
and situations."

Harry> In 1994, I compiled a file with Don Rosa's comments, sorted by story.
> Maybe this file can be updated quickly by just compiling every letter Don
> wrote since that time?

You must be joking. Don wrote a letter almost every *day*.

> BTW. When this file exists, I think editing it will not be too difficult.

The difficult part is to sort the information by story, and to edit
out the double remarks. And to adjust the texts so that they can
be read separately from the non-Rosa mails.

Harry> I kind of like the idea that "Aunt Daisy" really is an aunt of the
Harry> nephews (HDL). But there's one minor drawback: April, May and June
Harry> would be (real) cousins of HDL.
> Why is that a drawback?

Because I don't like it.
8-)

DANIEL (Kenny, that is):
> Why are we all of a sudden criticizing the innaccuracies of "the Universal
> Solvent"? Even if the story *is* innacurate (and that debate hasn't been laid
> to rest yet)it still is a great story.

There's no debate about it being a great story. But the more accurate a
story is, the more people complain about the remaining inaccuracies.
That's a "universal truth".
For example, in Don's "Treasure of Croesus", noone complains that it
is nearly impossible for Scrooge to find *all* the missing parts of the
temple of Artemis. But what still annoys me is that Don spelled the
German city of Muenchen as "Munich" in the story... 8-)

> It's the same for "Land Beneath the
> Ground" or "Island in the Sky". Nobody questioned those stories' credibility,
> because everyone accepted them *as* stories, and not as scientific documents.

There has in fact been a lot of complaining about "Island in the Sky". It's on a
lot of people's list of "worst Barks stories" (including mine).

--Harry.
"I like your Barks encyclopedia. I hope you'll finish it soon."
(me [paraphrased] to Daniel v.E., some years ago...)

Gary:

> has "Pluto Saves the Ship" appeared in color anywhere, ever?

Yes, it appeared in full color in "Zio Paperone" #33 (1992) and, much
earlier (1949), in "Topolino" #1-6 half in color and half in b/w (on
alternate pages).

Fabrizio.