Keskustelujen arkisto

PER-ERIK:
By the way, I just tried to send a long response to a private e-mail you
sent me, but my reply bounced back at me. Your e-mail address won't work
for my computer. Please send me another private message and include your
e-mail address typed in it, so that I can try to enter it manually rather
than simply hitting "reply to".

STEVE ROWE, 1 AUGUST 1997:

> I just read two issues of WDC&S from 1947 and 1957; and with the
> exception of one DD story; every story was set in the rural countryside!
> Growing up in the rural countryside, this never struck me as odd before
> now. Speculations as to why this theme? Any implications as to wheter a
> rural theme would work now, or be a hinderance?

Carl Barks has said the following about settings:

"I often liked to put the ducks into situations where they could be at
sea. There is something romantic about harbors and sunken ships that
appeals to all kids. I found it more pleasant to grind out the plot
lines and 'sight gags' for such stories."

(1983 notes for the Carl Barks Library, page 8C-666)

"When struggling for a story, I would often ask myself: what locale
do I want to draw? Do I want to draw a forest, the sea with sailboats,
or would it be down in the mines and caves? As soon as I thought of
a locale, I could come up with a reason for putting characters in
that locale."

(1976/1983 interview-compilation. Carl Barks Library, page 1B-417)

So, besides the much easier - or at least less boring - labour on drawing
backgrounds (as Don Rosa stated on 2 August), a reason for using rural
settings can also be that it gives more inspiration than a city.

HARRY FLUKS to me, 4 AUGUST 1997:

D> I think the mean reason for only a few replies is that it is
D> summertime

H> Yep, that's a very mean reason! (Sorry Daniel - I couldn't resist)

:-)

DON ROSA to me, 5 AUGUST 1997:

> [elevator gag in the hotel ten-pager (WDC 206)] This is a signifacantly
> different gag than the one used in the Forbidium/Impervium Money Bin
> story! It's one thing to show a character or object "stretch or squash"
> at the instant of impact or force. [...] It's another thing entirely to
> show a "human" (albeit Duck) body flattened permanently into what looks
> like a thin plywood cutout, complete with square edges, AFTER the
> instant of force, and get up and walk around and talk.

Yes indeed, you're right! I didn't think about that.

> As for what you think was censorable in that "Shrinking Tightwad"
> story... I never considered that hair is oily because it's unwashed...
> that's your own perception. All hair is oily, especially in microscopic
> view. And I also did not see Donald covered with snot after the BB
> sneezed -- maybe your head operates differently from mine, but when I
> sneeze I do so out of my mouth.

Er... right again! (red face, feeling very ashamed for having made such
a stupid comment) I should have known that!

> So, well, it wasn't snot, maybe it was spit? 6 a' one half a dozen of
> t'other? You got me there... I concede your point! I think I can blame
> that mostly on my penchant for last-minute detailing while inking. I
> would certainly condone the idea a dash of white-out being used to
> remove the *very few* indications that you see of "moisture" on those
> Ducks in the BB's pocket (NOT counting the gooey prune) or the visual
> oil on the hair (but NOT necessarilly the comment about it). Disney
> could have suggested this miniscule and simple touch-up rather than
> lopping out 3-4 pages, no?

Are you expecting the Disney 'fore-tasters' to be *creative*??? Gosh! ;-)

I always picture them as guys with huge cutters and a dustbin.

HARRY FLUKS to DON ROSA, 6 AUGUST 1997:

> (Email removed) is the address of Dutch member Daniel van Eijmeren.
> He has some problems with modem stuff, so he can't reach his mailbox
> at the moment.

Yes, but that had nothing to do with my name missing at the "From:" in
the mail Don replied to. I hope I've corrected that now.

BTW. Those recent "problems with modem stuff" was that I now have a
television-cable modem connected to my computer. This means that (besides
the subscribtion amount of about $25 a month) logging in to the internet
is entirely *free* for me now. Yippee! (I've heard that Holland has one of
the expensivest telephone companies, so I think one can imagine why I'm
so enthusiastic about it!)

HARRY FLUKS to KRYTON KIRIMIS, 9 AUGUST 1997:

K> [Rosa-story "Cash Flow"] I have seen negative comments on the story,
K> including a recent attempt to tear the story apart, right on this
K> list.

H> You must mean my mail from June 30. I was only giving my opinion about
H> that story, as part of a discussion of Rosa's best and worst. I didn't
H> intend to "tear the story apart". So far, every Rosa story has at least
H> one very good moment, and Cash Flow has several.

Your mean... er... main objections to the story are that the professor
doesn't recognize the Beagles Boys and that the Beagles are all messed up
at the end of the story while the ray has stopped their inerta.

My objections to these objections are that 1) the Beagle Boys don't seem
to be recognized by a lot more Duckburgians in general because they can
freely walk around in their blue/orange clothes together with an obvious
prison-number while no-one seems to be bothered or frightened by it. 2)
Even if they are recognized by everyone, how can you expect such an
obsessed professor to be remembering the people he has met? If my first
point is legitimate, then it would have been much stranger if he *did*
recognize them!

As for the Beagles Boys being messed up, I can say that 1) the inertia
being stopped doesn't mean that they can't fall over each other. It would
have been much stranger if they were lying neatly beside each other as in
panel 8 of the same page. 2) There's no sign of pain or wounds, so their
being messed up doesn't mean that their bounce against the prison-wall
hurted. Only one Beagle Boys seems to be unconscious, but he has at least
4 other Beagle Boys on him and since the gravity is still working, he must
have a heavy weight lying on him! This may have caused his painful/
unconscious expression.

K> The story was structured similarly to "The Incredible Shrinking
K> Tightwad" [..] and there were no complaints about the latter story.

H> OK, I could complain about that story as well, I you want. 8-)
H> But I won't. The I.S.T. had no logical flaws or inconsistencies.

Here's were *I* object. ;-) A reason why I'm not very fond of the
"Incredible Shrinking Tightwad" is that the solution of the shrinking
problem is found much too easy. The nephews just point the atom
substractor to the crowd because "the ray will only affect matter in the
state of *shrinkation*". How do they know that? And how can the rays ever
find their way to the shrunk ducks? They are somewhere in the pocket of
someone in a huge crowd! I'd say that even strong X-rays would have
trouble with that.

H> I know that Duck stories are just fiction, but I want them to be
H> *consistent* fiction.

Well Harry, if *you're* consistent, you should like the "Shrinking
Tightwad" even less! ;-)

ROB GIBSON, 10 AUGUST 1997

> My deep abiding love of the story "Island in the Sky" was and is based
> on the moral message of the story. Scrooge pays a huge price for landing
> an extra time to run the rope from the savages' little planet to the
> lush green planet so they won't starve ( I never noticed the
> astronomical impossibility of this until I recently reread it) [...]

I'm afraid this is going to be a very stupid question, but what is so
astronomical impossible about this?

A reason I'm thinking of is that the green planet turns around just like
the Earth, so that very soon the rope would be too short because of the
distance getting bigger. (But maybe Scrooge reckoned with that?)

BTW. Another reason could of course be that the distance between the two
objects is too close, so that - because of the gravity of the green
planet - the rock would have fallen to the planet instead of floating
near it, but let's say that Barks wanted to fit both objects into one
scene and thus placed them near to each other. OK? ;-)

I know it's only fiction and fantasy, but I've always liked discussions
like this (for example last year's discussion on the "Universal Solvent"
and Christopher Barat's recent comment on "Micro Ducks from Outer Space").

DON ROSA to LAURENT HEHMAN, 12 AUGUST 1997:

> [Donald being "out of character"] I think I have used DD too much as
> simple comedy-relief to $crooge's adventures in the past, and I try to
> change that.

I really hope so, because I also thought Donald was getting more and more
out of character. Instead of a very interesting person, he now is (IMO!)
someone who mainly annoys the people around him.

I also think that his fondness of lazing and drinking sodas is over-
emphasized, while the nephews are always wiseguys who always defeat Donald
when it comes to knowlegde. In Barks' stories there have been a lot of
situations where the nephews were portrayed as lazy kids who'd rather read
a comic than a book, while it was Donald who wanted to expand his knowlegde
on for example nature or literature. I really miss that more intellectical,
philosofical and sometimes even parental side of Donald.

> But I *don't* think my problem is simply that I don't have DD fly into
> rages in my U$ adventures. That's not the place for that. Those stories
> aren't about DD or his temper. And the humor of the situation would not
> be increased by violent fits of rage that have nothing to do with the
> plot (and which, in my *intensely* tightly plotted tales, I have no
> room for).

But is the humor of the situation increased by the unconcerned attitude
of the current Donald?

(I'm not saying with this that having Donald raging makes him "in
character". As I've explained in my previous comment, it's the deeper
and more committed side of Donald which I think is missing.)

BTW. Please don't regard this criticism as an offence, it's just like
you've said about movies some messages ago: what I love the most is
what I dissect the most. (And, of course, all is IMO!)

Me, 13 AUGUST 1997:

> I just disvovered a Barks webpage

Why do I always 'disvover' such typos *after* I've sent a message??? ;-)

Greetings,

--- Daniel
"My computer doesn't understand me"

MARCO:

> I start today with a <help> request. Translations again, or more exactly
> probably untranslatable word puns, I suspect. [...] The problem today
> arises with two strips of 17th November 1939 and of 29th November 1939.

> First strip: Donald is on his car, which carries a bone tied to a string.
> Donald finds he's out of gasoline, but doesn't look worried: instead, he
> goes to a phone booth and makes a call: "Yes, boys, I'm coming right
> now!". And, ditto!, a rescue dog appears (clearly attracted by the bone);

In the Dutch collection of Taliaferro's dialy strips (which unfortunately
was cancelled after publishing the year 1938, 1939 and 1940), Donald's
comment is: "Yes boys, right now!" Which means that Donald tells the boys
to release the dog, so it can follow the bone-trail.

IMO this makes far more sense than the comment you quote, maybe it's the
"evil translator" at work again? (I don't have the original, so I can't
check.)

> but at the dog's neck is a small barrel of **gasoline**, not of whisky.
> Is there a word joke somewhere? I just can't understand why there should
> be around town a dog carrying a barrel of gasoline! (Or is it Donald's
> own dog, properly instructed? But I don't recall having seen it already).

I think it's Donald's dog being instructed.

BTW. Carl Barks *did* use a gag in which an unknown rescue dog walks around
with gasoline, on page 9 of "A Duck's Eye View on Europe" (WDC 273).
Donald's comment: "Well, I guess the Alps are changing!"

> Still worse, second strip (29th November 1939): [...] Last panel: the man
> in charge of the dog race ties a can to Donald's tail and sends him away
> throwing at him another can. I can't understand a damn here. What is the
> connection between empty tin cans and dog races? Why is the man angry at
> Donald? What is the funny side?

My guess is that Donald wanted to spoil the dog race by throwing cans at
the dogs, but before he can do so he's betrayed and being thrown at
himself.

Maybe it was a habit at that time to spoil a race or a game with throwing
cans, just like it now seems a habit to do so with rolls of toilet-paper?

Greetings,

--- Daniel

Kathy:

>And yes, that seems pretty standard in comics and TV series that happy
>marriages do not make for interesting plots with some exceptions.

This is something that's puzzled me for years, though I sure can't argue
that, for the most part, happy marriages do seem to be a drag on telling
interesting stories. Ironic, since stories about *weddings* often pull some
of the biggest audiences.

One of the most famous exceptions, of course, was William Powell and Myrna
Loy as Nick and Nora Charles in the "Thin Man" film series. The marriage
was key to the fun, and there was plenty of that, especially in the first
two films. "Hart to Hart" was a pale TV imitation, though it, too, had its
charms, and the marriage was central to its entertainment value. In this
same vein was the "Elongated Man" series that ran in the back of DC's
Detective Comics for several years back in the Sixties, where the title
hero and his wife toured the country solving mysteries, and having a pretty
good time of it (I really miss that one).

Horace and Clarabelle, though...yeah, they should have gone for it.

Rich:

>Gary, is there any chance that over the next year we might be able to see
>stories from Brazil and others countries featuring regional popular
>characters like Carioca and Super Donald and others in "Walt Disney's
>Comics and Stories"? It is nice to see the inflow of Egmont tales though.

We don't really know what's being published in Brazil these days. We do
know about Super Donald, though we have wondered if that feature would find
a very good reception here in the States. We won't really know until we
try, I suppose.

Gary

****************************
"Ee!" - Tiffany Case (as two flaming shish kebabs unpleasantly
approach...)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Gladstone on the Web: http://www.hamlco.com/bhc/
---------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------
End of Disney comics Digest V97 Issue #168
******************************************

DANIEL:

> > Still worse, second strip (29th November 1939): [...] Last panel: the man
> > in charge of the dog race ties a can to Donald's tail and sends him away
> > throwing at him another can. I can't understand a damn here. What is the
> > connection between empty tin cans and dog races? Why is the man angry at
> > Donald? What is the funny side?

> My guess is that Donald wanted to spoil the dog race by throwing cans at
> the dogs, but before he can do so he's betrayed and being thrown at
> himself.

Assuming that Donald got a fitting punishment for his intended crime,
I would think that he had been planning to tie the cans on the dogs'
tails.
--
Kriton (e-mail: (Email removed))
(WWW: http://dias.cti.gr/~kyrimis
-----
"All's fair in politics and mathematics!"
-----

JAKOB (the one who never double-checks indexes):

H> Disney Comics also printed the contents of that album in 3 comics,
H> also called Donald and Scrooge.
> Which were the covers for those three comics?

Reprints of the covers for The Money Pit, Xanadu and Treasure Under Glass.
See http://www.pi.net/~fluks4/rosaus.htm for the complete index.

--Harry.

WILMER:
> The subject of cityscape backgrounds came up on this list once before,
> some years back. It was suggested herein that Sergio Aragones is one
> of the best creators of cartoon cities. I'd agree with that.

Agreed, but you were quoting my message when you wrote that, and I was
speaking of cartoony-realistic cityscapes, as you might see in Asterix or
Tintin or various other European-style comics. This is a whole different
type than an Aragones cityscape. (And I still need a better term than
"cartoony-realistic" for what I mean.)

DANIEL:
> But is the humor of the situation increased by the unconcerned attitude
> of the current Donald?

Are you asking *me*? Yes, the humore *is* increased. But you need to
realize that I am more than a product of reading simply Barks Duck stories.
I also grew up loving the low-key humor found in LITTLE LULU and in British
comedies... later in stuff like Monty Python. Yeah, I think it's intensely
more funny to see a low-key fatalistic response to an exaggerated stimulus.
That kinda thing cracks me up... so I'm afraid that will always be what I
will sooner put into my stories than just another scene of DD blowing his
top. I don't think that's especially funny unless it contributes something
needed to the story at hand. An underplayed reaction is, to me, inherently
funny. But that's a personal preference. You can't establish what is
universally "funny" for everyone.