Keskustelujen arkisto

HARRY...

>
>MARCO (October 14):
>
>> issue #85 of "Zio Paperone" carries [...] a short GG Milton-Jeepes story
>
>I'm sure you mean Jippes.

Of course! The double "e" was attracted by the double "a" in Daan...

>Which story do you mean? And who's GG? Gladstone
>Gander, Gus Goose or Gyro Gearloose?
>

(blush) Gyro Gearloose. The story is H 8245.

Marco

--------------------------------
End of Disney comics Digest V96 Issue #242
******************************************

On Nov 5, 1:38pm, Harald Havas wrote:
> Subject: HAD HAD HAD HAD HAD et al.

> DWIGHT
> >...."drawer" is already used for something else, it would be
>
> Yup. That's the exact word ("Zeichner") that's used in German and
> other European languages to point out somebody, who draws comics (or
> commercial art) as opposed to an artist, who paints pictures or does
> sculptures ("Comic-Zeichner" vs. "Kuenstler"). Which also allows to
> make distictions: Herge, Franquin, Moebius, Herriman and others
> are "Comic-Kuenstler", while the bunch of comics-people is not...(?)
>
Actually, there's the English word "illustrator" that seems to
fit, though it's long and perhaps a bit pretentious. "Artist"
seems to be what's mostly used in general parlance for anyone
who draws. As I said, "drawer" is used for something else
("Schublade" for you), based on a different shade of meaning
of "draw" (to "draw" something out). This is going to bore
everyone else silly, but it just dawned on me that German
"ziehen" and "zeichnen" are rather similar and cover both
senses of English "draw." Way back in the grey mists of the
dawn of time, was there a common Germanic root that brought
forth all these words?

> HAD HAD HAD
> Okay, here it comes - 11 times "had" in a row. First as it would
sound
> spoken, then, if you cant figure it out, with all proper apostrophes
etc.

Wait a minute! You made two sentences out of it! The period
breaks the string so it's not quite so wonderful!

--Dwight

To the question of whether Scrooge has died, William Van Horn gives his own
answer: in "Say Uncle!" (D 94206), which was written in 1995 but not
published in the USA until a year after, Scrooge says he has worked for his
fortune for "118 years." Since Don Rosa's Lo$ shows Scrooge has worked for
his fortune since 1877 when he earned his frst dime, 1995-118=1877!

--Jonathan Markoff

MARCO,

> Kriton, could you be more precise about the story you mentioned? Was it
> Italian? Do you know any coordinates for it?

No hard facts, but here goes:

It was printed in the Greek MIKY MAOUS in 1967 or 1968 so the story
is probably a bit older than that. The Greek title was something like
"After xxxx Years". Now that I think of it, xxxx was something like 4000,
not 100, as I originally said! I don't quite remember the style of the
artist, but it was from one of the "good" ones, quite possibly one who
used to put pointed tongues in duck mouths. MIKY MAOUS publishes a lot of
Italian material, so it is very likely that the story was Italian.

The plot:
Scrooge wants to know whether he should make Donald his inheritor, so he
tricks Donald and the kids into going to the distant future, to report on
what would happen. There, they discover that Donald is still alive, thanks
to a longevity drug that was discovered shortly after Scrooge's death, and
that he looks exactly like Scrooge. Donald meets him, and demands his share
of the inheritance. Donald senior makes him sign a paper saying that by
getting half of Scrooge's fortune he drops all claims to it, then gives
him exactly *one* dollar, claiming that its value is equal to the value of
Scrooge's original fortune, then throws him out. Donald is furious, and
conspires with the descendants of the Beagle boys to rob Donald senior,
taking advantage of the fact that the automatic security system of the
money bin would recognize him and not shoot at him. Never the less, his
attempt is foiled. Still wanting to get even, he tells Donald senior that
he'll return to the past, and ask Scrooge to disinherit him, so that Donald
senior might lose all of his money. Donald senior attempts to stop him, but
fails. When Scrooge learns that Donald had employed the Beagles to rob the
money bin, he decides to disinherit Donald. All that Donald is left with
is the dollar bill he got from Donald senior, which he spends to buy ice
cream for him and the kids. Unfortunately, it is a future dollar, and the
store owner, rather than having to wait for 4000 years, prefers to make
Donald and the kids wash the dishes.

This is all I remember about the story. Perhaps it is enough for someone
to identify it.

The story is one of the few that I remember vividly from my childhood.
(Another one was Colossus of the Nile. Sending a similar description to
Gladstone resulted in the eventual printing of that story. Any chance for
seeing this one printed, Gary?)
--
Kriton (e-mail: (Email removed))
(WWW: http://dias.cti.gr/~kyrimis
-----
"I've discovered we can't afford to die here--not even once!"
-----

DWIGHT:

To propose such a project as non-periodical publications to go into the
book distribution chain would step on the toes of other Disney licensees,
including Disney itself. Disney, which sees everything from a marketing
standpoint, would categorize such comics as books, which are a wholly
separate animal from anything covered in Gladstone's present and
currently-in-negotiation licenses. Not that we couldn't propose it to
Disney, and possibly work something out after extensive negotiations, but
it's not something we can just do.

On the other hand, this sort of program is one prominent item on an
extensive list of things we've considered and reconsidered over the years,
and think we ought to take a crack at, sooner or later, if and when we can
work all the details out to everyone's satisfaction. There's always hope.

DANIEL:

Everything that you cite concerning the USA section of the CBL in Color
came out of the post office's torpedoing of the term "library," which I
discussed in a previous posting (did you see it?). Prior to that, it was
definitely going to be called The Carl Barks Library of Uncle Scrooge
Adventures in Color; our initial advertising even depicted the cover of the
first volume stating such.

Gary
------------------------------------------------
Gladstone on the Web: http://www.hamlco.com/bhc/
------------------------------------------------

Hi again!

We've had a fascinating discussion of Disney animal characters, and
exactly what kinds of animals they are. I can see where Don Rosa's coming
from, certainly, and won't ask him again to use the more exotic kinds of
animal that even Barks occasionally put in. 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...but I believe he preceded, and
possibly even inspired, Donald Duck's Neighbor Jones. And he still stands out
as the only recurring funny-animal moose I can think of...aside, of course,
from Jay Ward's immortal (but much later) Bullwinkle.
By Steven Rowe's criteria, technically none of the Disney characters
are funny animals at all. A few Warner Bros. characters might not qualify,
either; Porky Pig has about as much in common with a real pig as Barks' Mayor
of Duckburg. (Well, I suppose you could say he had a speech impediment, but
certainly no more so than Donald Duck.)
I've always suspected the decreased variety of animals seen in Disney
comics (and most others) is a result of America's increasing urbanization. As
the population has moved more and more off of farms and into cities and their
suburbs, fewer and fewer American children have the familiarity with such
animals as ducks, pigs, and cows that their grandparents were likely to.
Little wonder the vast majority of Saturday morning cartoons that use animals
at all seem to feature dogs or cats, the only kinds of animal today's
children meet very often. (Or, at most, will meet in different settings...it
has more significance than one might think that Warner Bros.' new mouse
anti-heroes, Pinky and the Brain, live not in a mousehole in a suburban home
but in a science lab...)
The decline in the variety of animals in the MICKEY MOUSE strip may reflect
that urbanization. It seems ironic that that would even extend to cats (still
popular as pet; even more so now than dogs), but perhaps it was felt they'd
make for an unintentionally hostile atmosphere in a strip starring a
mouse...aside from Pete, who was *intended* to be hostile. (Not that dogs
don't chase mice too, but it's the reputation that's the thing...)
At one point I came up with a very lame theory that in the Disney
universe North America was populated largely by funny animals, while
continental Europe and Africa were mostly peopled with humans. That would
have explained the natives in Barks stories like "The Treasure of Hondorica"
and the original "Voodoo Hoodoo," as well as some of the movie crossovers and
other Barks stories like "Dangerous Disguise." It doesn't really stand up to
close analysis. What about all the Uncle Remus characters (B'rer Rabbit,
B'rer Fox, B'rer Bear, and if you want to get technical, the Three Little
Pigs and Zeke Wolf)? And the British Isles were human at the time of "The
Sword in the Stone" (Mad Madam Mim has frequently met the "core" Disney
characters) but not in Scrooge's day? No, it doesn't work at all.
But, speaking of "Dangerous Disguise" (and I'm still hard-pressed to
think of any other Disney story...one featuring the animals, not a film like
"Beauty and the Beast" or "The Hunchback of Notre Dame"), I'd like to see Don
Rosa bring back that issue's crooked matador/spy, Donaldo El Quacko. As a
double for Donald, he could create a lot of interesting and hilarious
complications if he dyed his hair/feathers/whatever and came to
Duckburg...though I'm undecided whether he'd really get Donald in trouble of
just try to bide his time and grab the opportunity to loot Scrooge's
money-bin. Your ball, Don!

And just as I was about to send this message off, I inevitably got the new
Digest...

Ole Neilsen wrote:

<<And those of you who find this a waste of bandwidth, please remember that
these Italian stories are published at a rate of hundreds of pages a month
across Europe. Unfortunately they are only credited in the original Italian
editions, so even popular artists like Cavazzano, Massimo de Vita, and Scarpa
are quite anonymous and unknown outside their home country.>>

I only wish we could see more of them from Gladstone! I'd said during its
first incarnation that I really loved the Scarpa stories...in fact, I counted
them as my all-time favorite Disney stories by anyone besides Barks,
Gottredson, and Rosa. Though I might possibly add Van Horn to the list,
otherwise that opinion still stands.

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.

<<Any feature or character created after his death must bear the logo
"Disney's" or "Walt Disney" without the apastrophe "s">>

So how would one credit a series like CHIP 'N' DALE'S RESCUE RANGERS,
combining "Walt Disney's" Chip 'n' Dale with "Disney's" Gadget, Monterey Jack
et al?

Harald also asked:

<<In my studies as a strip-historian I never encountered talking funny
animals, that pre-date Krazy Kat by George Herriman. First used as a side
strip to "The Family Upstairs" (since 1905 I think), Krazy and bunch soon got
their own series. Did Herriman (beside character known from fables and
fairy-tales) actually invent Funny Animal Comics? (At least as top-billing
characters?)>>

I'd say, if we're specifically talking about comic strips, the first
funny animals were probably done by Jimmy Swinnerton. Ron Goulart says of
Swinnerton in THE FUNNIES: 100 YEARS OF AMERICAN COMIC STRIPS: "Several books
over the years have lauded him for a comic strip titles LITTLE BEARS AND
TIGERS. Whay Swinnerton really drew...in the 1890s was little bears and
tykes--meaning little kids--and there was never a comic strip." [but rather
illustrated text. But he later did do an actual strip starring a funny animal
in New York.] "This time Swinnerton used the Tammanany Hall symbol of a tiger
for his inspiration. Little tigers, humanized and fashionably dressed, began
to figure in his Sunday pages. After awhile, the cartoonist turned the page
over to Mr. Jack, a married, white collar tiger who was something of a
womanizer." Goulart mentions several other early fuinny-animal strips
predating KRAZY KAT, including Herriman's own GOOSEBERRY SPRIG (starring a
duck who later became part of the Coconino County cast) and "SILK HAT
HARRY...populated by disreputable dogs in human garb" done by Herriman's good
friend and colleague Tad Dorgan.

Christer Hanssen wrote:

<<The other day I read Donald Duck in Ancient Persia (FC275) and there the
"mad scientist" actually dies! Well, he is redused to dust. This is the first
time I ever have seen a living person die in the Duck universe. Are there
other stories where that happens or is this one a rare incident?>>

I can't think of any offhand. In fact, even the professor didn't really
die. He was reduced to dust, but it was possible, through a formula he
himself discovered, to bring those subjected to the process back to life. So
it would be entirely possible to bring not only the Professor, but King
Nevawuzza, his ugly daughter, and her fiance Prince Cad Ali Cad back again
some day.
Come to think of it, that'd be another great project for Don. Indeed,
since Cad Ali Cad was *also* a double of Donald, it might get really wild to
use him, Donald, and Donaldo El Quacko in the *same* story...something I
wouldn't trust anyone but Rosa (or, of course, Barks himself) to do!!

Rich Morrissey

On Nov 5, 8:15pm, Kriton Kyrimis wrote:
> Subject: Re: art
> DWIGHT:
> > draftsmanship. If it weren't for the fact that the word
> > "drawer" is already used for something else, it would be
> > a good term for the people called "artists" in comic books.
>
> Well, there is the word "scribbler".

Except that applies in English mainly to writing, not drawing
(which is "doodling"). If I read the dictionary right, "scribble"
comes from the Latin "scribere," to write. It would be interesting
(to me, anyway) to trace how the Latin word became the debased
form of the act in English, while in German it apparently displaced
the native word for the concept entirely (Schreiben). Maybe Harald
would know...

--Dwight Decker