Keskustelujen arkisto

MARCO:

Naw, you didn't hurt my feelings. If you had, you wouldn't have heard
anything from me (I'm the sullen, silent type when it comes to nursing
grudges).

NILS:

Disney, though a publicly held corporation, is in the US private sector.
Mickey, Donald, Scrooge, and all their Disney stablemates are, therefore,
private property. Disney has a perfect right to direct that proofs of a
story they no longer approve of be destroyed, as such proofs pertain
directly to the usage of Disney's private property. This right is
conditioned neither by time nor by precedent, but solely by the terms of
the applicable licensing agreement between Disney and the party that
actually produced the proofs.

The part of this that can't be soothed by legalese is that these characters
are so much...ours. Disney may own them, but we love them, and whenever
something about them is, as we see it, mishandled, even by the owners, it
can hurt. A lot.

Gary

****************************
"Heads will swing!"
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Gladstone on the Web: http://www.hamlco.com/bhc/
---------------------------------------------------------------------

On Jan 22, 4:04am, Didier Ghez wrote:

> I think it was Jakob who recently expressed his suprise at
> the fact that
> Asterix videos were distributed by Disney in the US.
>
It's not really all that surprising. In the US, Disney has both
a cable-TV channel and a home-video company. Both need a lot of
product to sell, and Disney product alone isn't enough. So it's
probably only good business sense to get the rights to TV shows
and movies produced by presumed "competitors," since the material
would be similar to Disney's own productions. Disney was recently
in the news for picking up the video rights to the films of
Japanese animation director Hiyao Miyazaki, which are definitely
in the Disney ballpark (and reportedly studied by Disney's own
animators).

> But the most surprising is that he said that one of his dreams most
dear to
> his heart would be to see Disney make an adaptation of his character.
That
> will probably never happen, though, as Asterix is not that popular in
the
> US and as Uderzo wanted to keep the licensing rights on his
character.
>
Asterix isn't popular in the US _at all_. Several attempts to
introduce the character here by way of the albums have gone nowhere,
and even exposure of the character on the Disney Channel with the
Asterix movies has not resulted in any interest on the part of
the public. I wish it were otherwise... I know a few serious,
longtime comics fans who follow the series avidly, but as far
as the general public is concerned, Asterix doesn't exist. About
the only series from the Franco-Belgian comics industry to ever
make much of an impact here was the Smurfs (les Schtroumpfs). A
well-made series of Tintin films was shown a few years ago, but
again had little effect. Nor have translations of European comics
albums sold very well. Disney's effort to do something with the
Marsupilami alone (and not Spirou and Fantasio) met only yawning
indifference. It's too bad...

--Dwight Decker

GLADSTONE:

Re: The [unserialized] Lost Charts of Columbus

THANK YOU!

That thank you also extends to "A Matter of Some Gravity" which hasn't hit
my comic store yet.

(BTW Don...Great story!)
:)

-Shaun

Dear dona rosa,
Hi my name is Mike Prochaska and I am a diehard Disney comics fan. You
are my favorite Disney comic artist! I loved your Uncle scrooge Life and
times stories. I am a history major at Loras college in dubuque Iowa and
I loved how you use real people from history in your storys. I think that
the disney company that products comics here in America should print
more of your storys in there comic book here. I love them. YOU ARE THE
NEXT BARKS!!!!! Will you or any of your art work at the musuem come to
IL, wisconson or Iowa? I have been reading disney comics since I was 10
and I was about to quit reading them until I stumpled onto your Uncle
scrooge story. Thanks for writing and creating new storys. Without you
Uncle scrooge and Donald would not be as great as they are. OH ya I also
liked your story were they go into the center of the earth. Sorry if I
kind of rambled.
Mike prochaska
loras college
po box 1167
Dubuque Iowa 52004
(Email removed)

CAREY:
(I almost thought I should post this provately, since I've started a
non-Disney snowball rolling with this Cinerama mention, but I don't want
anyone to be mislead by wrong info.)
The fact that you actually seem to recall that you saw "2001" in Cinerama
must be proof that Hollywood hype sometimes works. "2001" was most
definitely *not* filmed in Cinerama. Neither was IT'S A MAD MAD MAD MAD
WORLD. But BOTH of those movies had the word "Cinerama" in all their ads.
Watch either of those movies on tape or disc today and you don't see the
intersection of 3 images as you do with HTWWW or (the only other Cinerama
"story"movie) THE WONDERFUL WORLD OF THE BROTHERS GRIMM when you see either
of the latter on TV. HTWWW had proved that Cinerama was just too costly and
troublesome to have a future in "story" motion pictures, but the name
"Cinerama", which was a major buzz-word of the 50s, still had the power to
draw in a few extra viewers. So Stanley Kramer (MAD WORLD) and Stanley
Kubrick (2001) both paid a licensing fee to use the name "Cinerama" in their
ads. (Apparently people named Stanley K-something got a price break to use
the term?) But get out your program book -- it does not say "IN Cinerama",
it just says "Cinerama". Those two movies were filmed in another special,
very nice (but very ordinary) wide-screen process like Ultra-Panavision or
Cinemascope-70, like BEN-HUR was. This would seem to be a pretty sleazy way
to trick movie-goers, but that's what they did.
You may have seen "2001" projected onto a Cinerama screen that they hadn't
torn down yet, but it was all comin' outta ONE projector. And they might
have had the sound coming out of the 7 Cinerama speakers, but there were not
7 individual sound tracks as in Cinerama-sound. (Cinerama-sound took an
actual additional roll of film just to hold it, rather than being included
on the movie-image reel as in normal movies (even though they had 3 of 'em
with Cinerama.) I'd hate to think so, but they must have chopped off the top
and bottom of the image if they filled all 146 degrees of that Cinerama
screen. Actually... I would guess that filming a special effects movie in
actual Cinerama was quite impossible in 1967 -- that would have taken
today's computers to pull off.
If you go on to say that you actually recall turning around and seeing three
independant projectors chugging away and pumping out "2001", I'd have to
start wondering if it was possible that they took the single-camera image
and split it onto 3 separate films (still lopping off the top and bottom).
But this would be an insane notion and impossibly expensive for a
one-theater showing. Why add that irritating junction of the 3 images when
it isn't there normally? Nah... that would be nuts.
(Sorry about this, non-movie buffs. Now, back to our regularly scheduled
program.)

Hi, folks.

Just a brief delurking, to tell you that I'll spend the next days in
Angouleme. If anyone in the list is coming there, we could meet, let us say
in the press lobby on Thursday at 3 o'clock in the afetrnoon. OR you could
leave me a message there in my mail-box.

See you there,

Fabio

PS Maestri Disney was delayed due to a illness of Lidia Cannatella, who is
the editor. I'm sure it is the fault of our evil list member... :-)

A long message quoting the entire previous digest appeared, and Don wrote:

> Fer the luvva god, unsubscribe "Christy Padgett" before she strikes again!!!!!

Sorry! Normally I have a size limit on messages to avoid that sort of
thing. Really long messages don't make it to the list before I have
okayed them. (And that's the reason for some of the delayed messages
folks here have noticed.) I had forgot to replace that limit after
temporarily removing it when letting through a legit long message.