Keskustelujen arkisto

DWIGHT DECKER (the abbreviation for whose name is exactly the same as that of
Donald Duck) wrote:
<<Just to be even more confusing, the fact that DC stands for
Detective Comics is pretty much forgotten now. The company is
just known as DC Comics, and what the "DC" actually stands for
is an answer on a comics trivia quiz that hardly anyone knows.
(Besides, it's kind of redundant -- is the name of the company
really "Detective Comics Comics"?)>>

"DC" has basically become just an alphabetical symbol in the company's
current corporate name, "DC Comics". Since the meaning of the abbreviation
has been removed, it can no longer be "redundant".

RICH BELLACERA wrote, regarding "Mickey Mouse in Love Trouble":
<<Well, actually someone else allude to a catfight, but yes the "one-up"
business was clear, though it was much more of an issue for Minnie and
Montmorency than for Millicent and Mickey. Mickey was merely trying
to regain his dignity, which Minnie, with the help of that jerk, tore down.
There was one panel where both Minnie and Millicent sniped at each other
in "thought balloons," (when they called each other, ironically, a "cat") but
that was relatively mild compared to the verbal sniping that Minnie did.
Millicent, on the other hand, never verbally gave in to that behaviour and
was ALWAYS a perfect lady to Minnie, though she did let Monty know of
her disinterest in his, what seemed to me to be a, come on. It looked like
he
saw her as a 'classy dame' and was making a 'play' for her right in front of
Minnie. Something Millicent was quick to catch onto, thus their leaving.
While Minnie constantly stuck her nose in the air and closed her eyes to
indicate her 'attitude,' I can't find one scene where Millicent did the
same to Minnie. This was one of the main reasons I found Madeline so
endearing.
Madeline never resorted to that sort of 'lowbrow' snobbery, but always
remained a refined and charming 'lady.'>>

Quite correct... though in the restaurant scene you mentioned,
Millicent/Madeline did engage in a LITTLE verbal sparring with Minnie, as
opposed to simply employing thought balloons. Minnie was by far the more
openly offensive of the two during the series of strips in which
Mickey/Millicent and Minnie/Montmorency kept running into each other.

<<Gee, don't we all wish we had a "Cousin Madeline" when our significant
other
does what Minnie did to Mickey. IMHO Mickey did nothing wrong. He
remained a gentleman to Minnie throughout it all and endured Minnie's
attitude and Monty's abuse. The scene where Mickey asked Minnie to
Patricia's
party and she hesitated answering until Monty showed up and asked her was
attrocious. I think a lesser man (like me) would have told Minnie a few MORE
things, and then never looked back. And it wouldn't have been jealousy,
rather
anger at her audacity. No, the more I think about it Mickey comes off as a
'Knight in Shining Armour' throughout the whole story. I can't blame him
for 'plotting' with Madeline to help Minnie see 'the error of her ways.'
Which, of course she does when she breaks down and cries. At that point
Mickey
let her know she never lost his affection for her, and sweet Madeline shows
her best face yet when she honestly consoles Minnie and then slinks quietly
out of the room to let Mickey and Minnie be 'alone.'>>

But Mickey also looks a little shocked and says "Oh-Oh!" when he sees the
humiliated Minnie dash out of the ballroom, indicating that perhaps he wasn't
expecting her to react in quite THAT fashion. His reaction was on the order
of, "Looks like my scheme worked all TOO well!" But I do agree that Mickey
was admirable in thereupon bringing Minnie back to some semblance of reality,
and Madeline was quite admirable as well.

<<I thought that too when I first read it, but I decided what must've
happened is
that Gottfredson must've intended for Mickey and Madeline to 'purposefully'
engage in that pre-rehearsed exchange in the proximity to Clarabelle.
Knowing
that Clarabelle was 'vacinated with a phonograph needle' the news of Mickey
and Millicent's date would soon be all over town and eventually in Minnie's
ear. I can only imagine that 'we' were not suppose to realize this at the
time or we would have figured out what Mickey was up to far too early in the
plot.
The fact that 'we' were not privy to the original telephone exchange lends
credence to this theory. How they knew Clarabelle would be in front of the
bookstore at that particular time I can't say, unless Mickey and Madeline had
already met sometime after he left Minnie's house and before they 'pretended'
to meet again (for the first time) when they did so that Clarabelle would
overhear the details. Clarabelle was an unwitting (though happy) accomplice
in Mickey's plans. Of course this would mean that Aunt Agatha was ALSO in
on the plan, which doesn't seem too unreasonable, since Mickey and Minnie's
relationship was a stake.>>

Actually, I was thinking of the later strip in which Millicent lays the
"dirt" on Mickey that Monty is really a servant. In that scene, Mickey is
alone at home, and Clarabelle is nowhere to be seen. Unless Mickey and
Madeline made an arrangement to remain in "character" regardless of where
they were located or who (if anyone) could be overhearing them, Mickey
calling Madeline "Millicent" in this scene really doesn't make that much
sense.

BTW, sorry to incorrectly attribute the "catfight" thing to you...

-- Christopher E. Barat
(Email removed)
http://members.aol.com/cebarat/home.htm
"YOU'VE MUSHED OUTTA CONTROL!" -- Nephew to Scrooge, "DuckTales" episode
"Till Nephews Do Us Part"

Don, Didier, Harry, and hopefully many others...

I am not particularly fond of Comics conventions, but you are now
**forcing** me to come to Lucca since you all will be there and Lucca is
only 70 Km from home. How can I lose this chance to meet all of you?
:-)

Since I won't be able to be there for more than one day, could we all agree
as a least common denominator on Sunday November 2nd? (I'm proposing this
since Don already said that's when he will come...).

Marco

--------------------------------
End of Disney comics Digest V97 Issue #178
******************************************

CHRISTOPHER (re: DISNEY ADVENTURES MAGAZINE):
>DISNEY ADVENTURES is no longer even treating its "kid" audience as Disney
>fans. The last two issues have had no -- zero, zip, zilch -- Disney comics
>material of any sort. Instead, there have been reprints of Jeff Smith's
>BONE, a story featuring DOUG (a character whose rights Disney purchased),
>things like that.

Yah, and the lastest one doesn't even feature familiar comics like "Bone" or
"Doug." It seems that with their Vol.7-#13 (Aug. 30, 1997) they have begun
a new series called "D&A" featuring two kids (Denise & Adam) who solve
mysteries and fight wierd creatures. It might be considered a Disney original
comic, but it's not the Disney I want. I guess I'll flip through the new
issues
while waiting in the grocery store checkout line to see if they've returned to
printing "real" Disney stories, but it'll go right back on the
"last-minute-item"
shelf if not. It's really sad 'cause I found that Disney Adventures was my
last
refuge for non-Ducks tales (except for the DuckTales stories). Well, there's
still the new Acclaim Digests (while they last), and, of course, the wonderful
Walt Disney Comics (Gladstone).

CHRISTOPHER (re: "LOVE TROUBLE"):
>BTW, sorry to incorrectly attribute the "catfight" thing to you...

That's O.K. No biggie. ;-) I'm just glad I finally got to read it. It
really is
a good story. In fact I'd consider it a "Classic" in Mickey lore.

PETE, DAN, IDJIT & WEASEL
"Love Trouble" definetely read much better than so many of the "Pete &
Weasel" or "Dangerous Dan & Idjit the Midget" vs. "Mickey & Goofy" tales
which seemed to just blend together. Can anyone recommend a great one of
these? I have a great number of WDC&S and find THESE tales very
tiresome, but if anyone can recommend a good one which features Pete &
his lackey Weasel (the guy with many other names), or with Dangerous Dan
and Idjit, I'd like to see if I can find something there. I can imagine it
was
THESE stories which may have trashed interest in Mickey as a popular
character. Pete is a good character, and Weasel can be good as well, but it
seemed like so many of the stories featuring them were retreds of the last
version. Sometimes on a sub, sometimes on a ship, sometimes in the old
west, but all of them seemed pretty much the same. In my opinion, the
stories written by Gottfredson featuring Shyster & Pete vs. Mickey &
Goofy (or Horace) were the prototypes for these later stories which never
quite had the same flare as Floyd's originals. And what good qualities are
there in Dan & Idjit? These two would've fared better as two nameless
Beagle Boys. They don't seem to carry the role of villian very well. I
think that is why I like Disney's run of Mickey Mouse original stories
when they were running it (though I also liked Gladstone's Gottfredson
reprints from their own run of "Mickey Mouse," "Mickey and Donald" and
later "Donald and Mickey." And with the inflow of great Mickey stuff from
Egmont, perhaps the days of dry tales featuring Dan & Idjit are over? It's
not that I don't think Dan and Idjit couldn't be well utilized (by a good
writer, artist, etc.), it's just that thier past hasn't proven to be very
great. I'm
open to opinions. What do other people think abot the old Mickey Mouse
tales as they ran in the 60s and 70s? There were some fairly good tales
during that time, but they weren't of the sort I'm talking about here.

-Rich

-Rich (xephyr)
http://www.jps.net/xephyr/rich/disney.html

HARRY,

Thanks for your reply on the German producktion.

You wrote:
>"Too Many Pets" was written by Merrill De Maris

There's something strange about this story. According to Michael
Barrier's "Carl Barks and the Art of the Comic Book", Merrill de Maris
wrote the story or at least gave the basic plot. Barrier even included a
sort of proof, quoting Carl Barks himself who actually recalled the
story was not written by him, but was the work of someone else. He even
said it was some "Merrill".

When "Too Many Pets" was (re-)published in a Gladstone Album, Gladstone
also credited De Maris for writing it.

But years after, in a comic-book's letters page, Gladstone said that
this was an *error* and that *Barks* wrote "Too Many Pets". I spent
quite a long time to find the reference of this, but I did not succeed.

I'm asking this to everyone of you on this mailing list:

Is this an error by the Gladstone editors?

JOACHIM:

(About Don Rosa's new art on Picsou)
>Sounds very interesting. Please report more about this.

I don't know what this will be exactly. But I'll try to say more in the
future...

Juergen:

(About Disney Europe' stories)

J>What kind of stories do they produce, and which story codes
J>do they use?

I was not very clear about this. I call them "Europe stories", but it's
my own jargon. Anyway I will say here what I mean:

The stories are mostly adaptations of animated films. The "classics"
like "101 Dalmatians" or "The Aritokittens". But there are also a few
new stories with the characters of the new Disney movies like "Goof
Troop" or "Duck Tales" (the latter is not absolutely new now), or "The
lion King" etc. There was also a special Scarpa adventure in Disneyland
Paris, written by Jacques Lelievre.

You have probably seen some of these stories, they are published in
Albums (at least in France). Most of the writers are French, while the
artists are from Spain (Comicup Studio), and from various Animated
Studio (I don't exactly know).

The codes are "EGN" + space + year [of publication] + month. For
example, "EGN 97-03". According to Harry Fluks, "EGN" stands for "Ero
Graphic Novels".

PER-ERIK,

If you have more informations about Swedish productions, please, let us
know. At least, *I* am interested.

DAVE,

The few artists or writers who are on this list, we want them to give
all the details on their own productions!

I already asked what was your first story. We would like to know what
was all the characters used as the heroes of your stories. Only MM and
DD?

All the very best to everyone,

Francois

In a message dated 97-08-23 17:14:13 EDT, you write:

<< KRITON KYRIMIS commented, regarding DISNEY ADVENTURES -style comics:
<<...
The publishers sent me a couple of letters to inform me of all the
wonderful stuff that "my kid" would be missing, and this only strengthened
my decision not to renew. I am not a kid (even though I am a child at
heart), and even if I were a child, I would not want to be treated as
such: part of the fascination of Disney comics is that they do not talk
down to children, treating them rather as young adults.>>
Then Christopher wrote:
<<DISNEY ADVENTURES is no longer even treating its "kid" audience as Disney
fans. The last two issues have had no -- zero, zip, zilch -- Disney comics
material of any sort. Instead, there have been reprints of Jeff Smith's
BONE, a story featuring DOUG (a character whose rights Disney purchased),
things like that. >>

Yeah, but these are still good comics. And while my sub copy of the new
issue isn't in yet (so no comment on that), one of the previous 2 did have
the Mighty Ducks - and while I'd rather see Bone, Mighty ducks is a Disney
cartoon. And I wonder if the lack of Disney cartoon comics is due to
Acclaim...

Disney Action Club (pulbished by Acclaim)
#1 (c) 1997

Hercules * My Fill of Phil Chichster/Quatieri & Ottolini 97135-L 26pp
Toy Story * Nervous Rex Jack Enyart/ Jackson Guice ((another guy from the
Carolinas)) and Mike DeCarlo 97AC1TS 8pp
Mighty Ducks * Hard Score Roger Brown / Jeff Albrecht 97AC1MD-G 1p
Lion King * Roam Alone Kayte Kuch, Sheryl Scarborough/ Gonzalo Mayo & Dave
Hunt 97AC132 14pp
Aladdin * Carpet Burns ((hmm, wink wink nudge nudge)) Kuch,Scarborough/
Rusty Haller & Mike DeCarlo 97AC131 8pp

And would I fib about 97 AC codes? noway: what you see is what they got.

Steven Rowe ((another guy from the Carolinas))

Francois:

> According to Harry Fluks, "EGN" stands for "Ero
> Graphic Novels".

That sounds like "adults only" literature. I know I have never
said something like that... 8-)

> The few artists or writers who are on this list, we want them to give
> all the details on their own productions!

"Few"? For a computer mailing list, I think we have quite a lot
of Disney creators. Like Byron Erickson, David Gerstein, Dave Rawson,
John Lustig, Gary Leach, Susan Daigle, Gary Gabner, Shaun Craill,
Gianfranco Goria, Mark Evanier, Pieter van Cleef, Jos Beekman,
Dwight Decker, Don Markstein, and Stefan Printz-Pahlson.
(Janet Gilbert and Branko Collin have e-mail, but are
no member of this List.)
And I'm sure I missed someone! 8-)

(Well, compared to the 863 known writers and artists in the Database, you
*could* call it a few...)

> We would like to know what
> was all the characters used as the heroes of your stories.

You can find that on the web page on Dave Rawson, where there is
also an index (containing all of Dave's work; he gave us the data
himself).
BTW, this holds for most of the people mentioned above: they delivered
the data for their own Disney stories.

--Harry.

unsubscribe

Francois Willot <(Email removed)>:
>Dave Rawson> By the way, despite the fact that we used "de Jour" it's
>> more properly "du Jour" is it not?
>
> I don't know what "Tour d[whatever] Jour" means. I don't think it's
> a correct French expression. What do you mean exactly with that?

Like Soup of the Day or Today's Soup (The Tour Available Today).

> And, by the way what was your first story?

My first story was ASHES OF AN OAK for DC's Impact line: a Black Hood
Annual story where Pat McGreal and I got to tie up all the story lines
that had gone thus far (since the series was being canceled). It was
drawn by Leo Duranona.

My first work for Egmont was Twin Beaks written way back in 1990-1991.
(I don't know the artist or story code.) This originally was
commissioned by Bob Foster while he was at the short-lived Disney
Comics.

(Email removed) (Juergen Gebhardt):
> it is much easier for us to find the story if you include the story
> code in your advance warning.

Sure thing. Thanks for the suggestion. In this case, for THE MERCHANT OF
MENACE drawn by Colomer and featuring Donald and the Nephews, it's
D94250.

> And after your very astute explanations about abbreviations

I don't know how astute they were, but thanks for the kind words anyway!

> I must plead my ignorance and ask, what does the abbreviation ECN
> stand for?

You know, I'm sorry, but I must plead ignorance as well. No key was
given (proving my earlier point) so I could only guess something like
Egmont Comics Network or some such. Likely a few other folks here can
help us out on this.

> Have I missed something somewhere?

I think it must replace the old "EPS" date-of-publication notes that
folks like Francois use (and in that case I guess EPS meant Egmont
Publishing Services).

Also a publication date number like 45/97 means the 45th week of the
97th year of this century. So it should be out in about 10 weeks
(depending on what week Egmont counts as Week 1).

This reminds me that a silly little Donald 6-pager, HAVE CROWD, WILL
TRAVEL, D96283, drawn by Scalabroni, must have just been published and
that a 7-page Donald, Daisy & Gladstone story, LUCK OF THE DUCK, D96207,
drawn by Massaroli, ECN #39/97, should be out in about a month. This
last story has some nice moments in it, but I'm not sure the last panel
is staged with enough strength to provide a proper payoff. Y'all be the
judge.

Finally, A COLLECTOR, A COBBLER, A BRIGHT AND YELLOW OCHRE, a 12-page
Scrooge story, D93247, drawn by Millet was likely published in the July
monthly titles. This story is a little offbeat in that the visuals don't
carry a narrative all the way through (as I try to write nowadays), but
the sentiment is near to my heart and is dedicated in my mind to all
those east-European artisans and craftsmen who lived under repressive
regimes. Lastly, it may be of interest to some since, I'm told, it was
chosen to be part of a Scrooge 50th anniversary collection. It basically
examines the ancient concepts of value and worth, as opposed to wealth
which is a more modern concept, unfortunately more and more separated
from its antecedents.

Francois Willot <(Email removed)>:
> The [relatively] few artists or writers who are on this list, we want
> them to give all the details on their own productions!

Well, I think folks mostly want to hear from Don. I'm not sure but what
I'm cluttering things up with talk of what I've done.

> I already asked what was your first story. We would like to know what
> was all the characters used as the heroes of your stories. Only MM and
> DD?

No, Scrooge, Daisy, the nephews, Gyro, and Grandma have all been the
featured character in one or more stories I've done for Egmont. (In
fact, GRANDMA GOES TO TOWN, D96397, drawn by Marsal, but with no release
date I know of as yet, is one of my best little stories, I think: good
characterizations; good pacing and payoff; decent art with superb
inking, some pages with blacks spotted so that the page as a whole reads
as a single complex piece of art. I think I said before to watch for
stuff by Marsal.)

As Harry points out, you can sus such things (as characters) out from
the web page these folks here kindly and very generously have given me.
Beyond that, you may want to check out my "bio" page connected to my own
web address given below.

ALL:
Thanks for asking all the questions, folks. Like Don, I usually don't
think of anything to say unless asked, then (unlike Don) you can't shut
me up once asked! I hope the answers aren't so boring as to crush the
list under the weight of their tedium.

Best,

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