Keskustelujen arkisto

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23
Author

Topic: 199709

(341 messages)
Don Rosa
I spoke to Byron a few minutes ago and he was telling me a bit about the
Egmont artist-writer conference that they had last week. And he told me
about an announcement of an interesting (!) policy change that Egmont will
soon begin (and being Egmont, which will effect MOST of the Disney comics
on the planet). Some of you might know about this already... but I suggest
we allow Byron to make the announcement himself when he next has a moment
to send a message to this ML. He is virtually, if not absolutely, solely
responsible for finally getting this new policy instituted, and I think we
should let HIM announce it.
Tarjei Kidd Olsen
Hi,

SHAUN:

>In 1880, $crooge arrived in Louisville, not St. Louis, Kentucky.
>Louisville is the hometown of the Kentucky Derby, and a certain Duck
>artist we all seem to enjoy the work of. Otherwise, great work on the
>timeline! I'm going to print it out and use it as a nice reference guide!

Thank's! Anyway, I really should(especially since I actually visited Don
during my summer holidays in '95(sorry for phrasing this as if you're not
here, Don!)), and DO know that really, but by that time in the evening it
was pretty late and I was getting sleepy and, and..... ;)

MARK:

>ME: We're doing a four issue GROO mini-series for Dark Horse. First
>one comes out at the end of January, 1998, then all four are supposed
>to be collected into a paperback. Glad you missed us.

I definately do/did! I couldn't believe it when you joined the list,
considering Groo is one of the only American comics I read (apart from
Disney stuff, that is)!

JO:

Thank's for spending all that time researching my question!

>I we are talking about the same interview, then last I heard of it is from a
>mail from Harald Havas, 12 April 1996 (!) where he wrote:
>"I sent the Barks-Interview to Per - everything else is up to him."
>

Um, well, no, actually. I'm talking about another interview that was
definitely mentioned in '97, since I only joined about 5 months ago! But
what DID happen to the interview from '96?? ;)

______________________________
/ \
/ <<TARJEI KIDD OLSEN>> \
| |
| http://home.sol.no/kidd/ |
| |
| (Email removed) |
| |
| YOU know |
| it makes |
| more sense than |
| you think... |
\ /
\ <|T|> /
\____________________________/
Deckerd
On Sep 8, 4:47am, Luna Storta wrote:

> On the (wonderful) DcD I found in the Christmas Daily strips drawn by
> Gottfredson a story entitled "Bambi kerstavontuur" can some of you tell
> me what does kerstavontuur minds in english?
>
Christmas adventure, right, Dutchguys?

--Dwight Decker
Deckerd
On Sep 3, 7:48pm, Donald D. Markstein wrote:

> I'm not sure how the situation has changed with the current
> U.S. copyright law, but during World War II, the U.S. government
> held no copyrights. Everything it produced went immediately into
> the public domain. I guess that's why that Donald Duck IRS cartoon
> can appear in anthologies -- if it was "owned" by the government,
> then anyone can use it now.

Is that the same case with "Scrap-Happy Daffy," a cartoon featuring
Daffy Duck that seems to turn up on all those public-domain cartoon
collections you get for $3.00 at the drugstore? If memory serves, it
wasn't a regular WB cartoon, exactly, but a Public Service message
promoting scrap drives.

> Dwight Decker can probably tell you more about collections
> of Warner Bros. wartime cartoons, when he comes back from that
> seminar, because he keeps track of video better than I do (or
> anybody else I know, for that matter). I'm pretty sure there's a
> laserdisk containing a dozen or so of them, with commentary by
> Leonard Maltin. Naturally, the classics, like "Russian Rhapsody",
> are on it, as are some oddball, non-offensive items like "The
> Ducktator". "Bugs Bunny Nips the Nips" and "Tokio Jokio", however,
> are not.

I'm back but I'm not sure what I can tell you...The Maltin-hosted
collection is available (or was) on tape, too, and has a title like
"Bugs and Daffy -- the Wartime Cartoons." The cover art is a gorgeous
painting showing Bugs and Daff wearing WWII-era military uniforms.

"Bugs Bunny Nips the Nips" isn't in that collection, but was in
Volume I of MGM's series of boxed laserdisc sets of Warner toons.
I've heard that the cartoon was omitted from a subsequent reissue
of the collection, supposedly due to Turner policy, and the first
edition has acquired collectible status and high prices on the
secondary market as a result.

As for why Disney is sitting on "Der Fuehrer's Face" (and if that
isn't an interesting image...), I don't know. It gets excerpted a
lot in retrospectives, so it isn't being tossed down the memory
hole, exactly. Somebody speculated that it was now thought to be
too "anti-German," but I always thought that was a bit over-simplified.
I'd guess the cartoon is considered too much a product of its time,
too caught up in wartime belligerence, too enmeshed in the context
of World War II, to be funny or even comprehensible to children
over half a century later. What that doesn't explain is why the
cartoon wasn't included in the "An Officer and a Duck" collection,
where it would have been in the proper context and could have been
introduced in a way to explain it. As I recall, the introduction to
"An Officer and a Duck" actually includes clips from "Der Fuhrer's
Face" -- but not the bloody cartoon itself!

--Dwight Decker
Mark Mayerson
Dwight Decker wrote:
>Is that the same case with "Scrap-Happy Daffy," a cartoon featuring
>Daffy Duck that seems to turn up on all those public-domain cartoon
>collections you get for $3.00 at the drugstore? If memory serves, it
>wasn't a regular WB cartoon, exactly, but a Public Service message
>promoting scrap drives.

To the best of my knowledge, this was just a slip by Warner's legal
department. There are lots of Warner cartoons from the same period
(Corny Concerto) that also fell into public domain. For whatever reason,
the 28 year copyright wasn't renewed on time. Scrap Happy Daffy was
a regular Warner release, not made for the government.
___________________________________________________________________
Mark Mayerson Catapult Productions
(Email removed) Toronto, Ontario, Canada

Check out the Monster By Mistake website at http://www.MonsterByMistake.com
Nils Lid Hjort
I have noticed the recent contributions relating to the KALEVALA,
which Don Rosa might be using as a background for a "Finnish Duck story",
with interest. (I particularly liked the tone-beat and trochaic rhythm
of Don Markstein's contribution! It was amusing to read it after having just
come from a strenuous two-hour lecture on Russian poetry, which is 80%
four-footed iambic. I got slightly seasick by the culture clash.) Yes, rhythmic
aspects of the language used by the creatures the Ducks would encounter would
be quite important in any successful Duck Kalevala story -- Barks proved in
U.S. #18 that such a thing can be successfully carried out!

Don R hints that his Finnish is rusty and would have liked to find a suitable
"Kalevala light", ideally with long synopsis and good analysis. I don't think
there is one around. (When in Finland last year I saw a Latin 365-page version
of Kalevala!) But I recall having seen much praise for an English translation
(of the Whole Thing) by Keith Bosley, a couple of years back. -- Anyhow, some
insights and glimpses into the big, old, cold, strange, wild, raving and
fascinating Kalevala world can be gotten through a couple of recent CD
recordings of new and old Finnish and Estonian music:

* One is by Einojuhani Rautavaara (b. 1928), semi-famous contemporary Finnish
composer. "The Myth of Sampo", bulding on Kalevala, dates from 1995. The CD
booklet notes (by the composer) _do_ contain sortuva `Kalevala Light', and the
full text (Finnish with English translation) that Rautavaara chose to use for
his work (for tenor, bass, fullblooded testosterone-filled Finnish male choir,
and prior-made tape). So this is one way to get a Kalevala impression without
reading the whole thing. And it's interesting to see what aspects the artist
here chooses to highlight, and the partly quite visual interpretations/
descriptions. (I did send copies of these notes to Don a while ago.)

* Another is by Veljo Tormis (b. 1930), even-more-famous Estonian composer
(second only to Arvo P\"art in current popularity). I think the title of the
relevant work, also from around 1995?, is "The Eleventh Rune of the Kalevala".
It's a torrent of strong words with very vivid images of hard physical and
mental fighting.

* And a third is "The Kalevala Heritage", recently released by the Finnish
company Ondine. It contains old songs, "orally transmitted" over generations,
and that my date back several centuries. Check out
http://www.vn.fi/vn/um/finfo/english/kalheeng.html.

Nils Lid Hjort

--------------------------------
End of Disney comics Digest V97 Issue #192
******************************************
Harry Fluks
To those who expect an answer from me to their (private or
public) e-mail: be patient, please. At the moment, I'm busy
entertaining Dave Rawson. 8-)

--Harry.
Bhc
Shaun:

>Would Gladstone sales suffer much if Canada *did* start up a
>Disney-licenced comic publishing company? I guess the question here is,
>how much of your sales are made here?

We certainly would not want to lose those sales in Canada. Still, if a
Canadian publisher did arrange to take on the challenge and expense of
publishing Disney comics strictly for Canada, they could triple the sales
we have but still lose money. They'd also face the daunting and, as I
understand current circumstances, necessary task of putting out versions in
French, which would add substantially to what would already be inadequately
covered production and printing expenses.

Rich:

>2) licensing agreements which would require
>companies like Gladstone and Acclaim to purchase individual rights for every
>character or program that they want to use, which is costly and more trouble
>than it would be worth (especially if the story with Mickey and Simba was a
>"One-Shot")?

That one hits closest to the truth, though things aren't quite as segmented
as all that. There are currently two comics licenses for the US, one for
the "traditional" characters, currently held by Gladstone, and one for the
"modern" characters, currently held by Acclaim and previously by Marvel.
Crossovers between the properties (characters, to us reader types) covered
by these different licenses would be tricky enough to arrange just between
Gladstone and Acclaim, and once you added Disney's required participation
into the equation...well, Gladstone and Acclaim would need to be able to
get a whole amalgamated-Disney-universe line out of it, that would look to
sell at least as well as Vampirella titles, for it to be worth the trouble.

Gary

****************************
"It's Bindy Gonzer's birthday!" - Churchy La Femme
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Gladstone on the Web: http://www.hamlco.com/bhc/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Bhc
Shaun:

>I've never actually visited Quebec, nor do I have any
>knowledge of Gladstones shipping destinations in that area of the country,
>so I can't tell you for sure.

Just as a point of information, Gladstone has no shipping destinations
outside of our back issue mail order operation. Our newsstand distributor,
Curtis Circulation, determines all US and Canadian shipping points for
newsstand editions of Gladstone comics, while Diamond Distributing deals
with the direct market side.

I know I'm picking a nit, but it's Monday...

Kriton:

>Did anyone notice that the Plain Awfultonians in Lost in the Andes /
>Return to Plain Awful are *identical indians*? As the latter story was
>just recently reprinted by Gladstone, does their being *south* American
>natives somehow exclude them from Disney's ban?

Probably has something to do the fact that the Plain Awfultonians don't
sport the stereotyped props that raise alarms at Disney. Y'know, feathers
and moccasins and teepees and such...

I passed along your comment about resolving the "young Scrooge hair color"
situation to Sue, who goes "aw, shucks!" As for your question...no one here
has any idea. Sorry.

Gary

****************************
"It's Bindy Gonzer's birthday!" - Churchy La Femme
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Gladstone on the Web: http://www.hamlco.com/bhc/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Per Starback
Harry wrote:
> I we are talking about the same interview, then last I heard of it is from a
> mail from Harald Havas, 12 April 1996 (!) where he wrote:
> "I sent the Barks-Interview to Per - everything else is up to him."
>
> So, Per (or Harald)? What happened?

I added it to the WWW pages and it's been there since then.
Tarjei Kidd Olsen
Hi,

DON ROSA:

>Secondly, never fail to remember that that notion, along with ALL those
>other dates, are all only *MY* personal view of all this. It should
>certainly not be treated as any sort of "official" universal "truth" among
>all the other Duck stories. I trust you keep that in mind.
>

Yes, but nevertheless you're the only Disney artist I know of who has ever
spent so much effort on creating a coherent timeline (even better: one
corresponding with the (at times erroneous) Barks timeline!).Add to that the
fact that you're my favourite Disney artist/writer(that's why I'm paying any
attention to all this in the first place ;) -and the fact that I always
wanted to try to put some kind of order into the confusing chaos that is the
Disney universe- and it's pretty hard to resist sticking to your timeline(
with the possible exception of Scrooge's death). And anyway, it's fun!

And thank's for correcting my numerous errors! Well actually, *argh*...Now
I'll have to spend quite a while correcting everything....

EVERYONE:

I got my first ever copy of the Overstreet Price Guide
today...According to it, #511 of WDC&S (first Gladstone #) is worth $20 when
in mint condition. I have that #. The pages and the cover are all in perfect
condition, except that the pages have yellowed a bit. Would this be
considered mint?

______________________________
/ \
/ <<TARJEI KIDD OLSEN>> \
| |
| http://home.sol.no/kidd/ |
| |
| (Email removed) |
| |
| YOU know |
| it makes |
| more sense than |
| you think... |
\ /
\ <|T|> /
\____________________________/
Dan Shane
MIKKO:

Your insight on the KALEVALA stories was welcome and enlightening. Perhaps
this bit of information will nudge Don toward giving more serious
consideration to adapting some of the legends associated with the collection
to his Duck adventures.

One suggestion: When referring to various ancient works, it's a good idea
not to identify certain writings as mythology when they are still viewed by
millions today as holy scripture, including the Vedas and the Bible. Just
because these collections are centuries old does not mean they are
universally considered to be fictional, as are the myths of civilizations
long gone. Joseph Campbell may have thought of the Bible, the Quran, and
the Vedas as myth, but not everyone agrees with him.
Shaun Craill
On the topic of the popularity of Donald vs Mickey, I think that one of the
reasons (and it is only *one* of the reasons!) that Donald has enjoyed
greater popularity over the years than Mickey is that he is better designed
for facial expressions. Mickey came first and was designed primarily to be
easy to animate for cartoons. Facial features were deliberately kept simple.
When Donald arrived on the scene cartoons had become more sophisticated and
more evolved. To this end Donald acquired big eyes and a big beak. These
over sized features allow a massive range of exaggerated facial expressions
which make him and the rest of the duck family such fun to look at and to
read about in comics.

When Mickey first arrived he had many of the character traits that Donald
later adopted as his own. For example in Steam Boat Willie Mickey was
positively mean to animals, using them as musical instruments. Later on this
style of humour was left for Donald, as has been mentioned in recent postings
about Donald tieing tin cans to the tails of dogs. I remember reading
somewhere that Walt Disney himself always intended for Mickey to be more like
Donald, but the public at large preferred a clean cut decent character
instead of a prankster. Perhaps people needed to see a clean cut character
in order to have a yardstick to measure Donald's mischief against?

I think that Donald is simply a better designed character to show extremes of
emotion; temper, fright, laughter, temper, slow burns, more temper,double
takes, more temper, etc. Also everyone's a sucker for a bad luck story and
for the under dog, Donald must be the ultimate. Mickey simply doesn't fit
into those categories. I guess what I'm trying to say is that there is a lot
more to it than simply comparing the styles of writing and art of different
creators and trying to make valued judgements about which was more popular
and why. You also have to look at the raw material they had to work with. I
reckon the beak and the eyes have it!

Maybe a writer/artist who has worked on both would like to comment?

--------------------------------
End of Disney comics Digest V97 Issue #191
******************************************
Augie De Blieck Jr.
LOST ATTRIBUTION:

I'm surprised nobody has answered this on the list yet, so:

> Pardon my ignorance, but has Rosa's "Avatars" story been published in the
> U.S.?

Yes. Uncle $crooge Adventures #51, I believe.

DON:

You better get Byron to post his info fast now that you've got us all drooling
in anticipation.

MARK:

Speaking of drool: New Groo! Welcome back! What else have you been doing with
your writing life, other than the CBG column?

-Augie
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Augie De Blieck Jr. - (Email removed) - (Email removed)
"Egg whites are good for a lot of things; lemon merangue pie, angel
food cake, and clogging up radiators." -MacGyver (Bushmaster)
Rich Bellacera
Wilmer River:
> Disney could then hold licenses for the "old French" Gus and Jac and for
> the "new American" Gus and Jac, separately. Just a thought....

I guess one reason for posing the question about "separate Disney
Universes" is
based on the curiously UNIQUE position that Gus & Jaq, "The Cinderella Mice"
(as they were repeatedly called) hold in the Grandma Duck storyline. I can't
currently think of any other NON-Mickey/Donald/Goofy related characters that
hold this same status as Gus & Jaq. I think we basically accept that the
reason
Mickey and Donald don't run into eachother very often is because Donald lives
in Duckburg and Mickey lives in Mouseton. Even so, meetings between them
are still possible (it just a matter of logical travelling). However, Gus
& Jaq are
an anomally in this apparent universal moratarium (at least in the United
States),
since they rightfully belong to the universe of Cinderella, but they have
such a
we established existence as residents of Grandma Duck's farm (as does Lucifer
the Cat, also from "Cinderella," though less so). So in this new format which
seems to prevent crossovers, would Gus & Jaq still reside on Grandma Duck's
farm, despite their origin? Sure, it could be presumed that the mice and
the cat
are no longer the original critters from "Cinderella," but rather some
alternate
universe dopplegangers, but then they could not longer be sub-titled "The
Cinderella Mice" as they are in most of their reprint stories (both where they
headline and where they co-star with Grandma Duck and Gus Goose). Or can
we expect that they will simply be dropped and treated as if they never existed
from any future "NEW" stories presented in the USA which involve Grandma
Duck's Farm?

-Rich (xephyr)
http://www.jps.net/xephyr/rich/disney.html
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23