Keskustelujen arkisto

This week the limited Ehapa "Life of Scrooge by Don Rosa" box was released.
It contains the first 6 Albums, with chapters 1 to 12, and the new issue #0
with "hearts of the Yukon" and "of Ducks and dimes and destinies".
And the whole pack costs 149 DM (approx 85$)

It also contains a "print signed by Don Rosa" that is a full size 3 page
"fold-open" print, with the Scrooge/Goldie Picture in the middle and Don s
signature on the page to the left of the image.

The box in which all the items are stored doesn t seem to be very stable
(or better: looks cheap!) and I was very disappointed when I saw the print.
Becuase of that layout you can t even frame it on the wall and even the
paper that it is printed on doesn t look any special.

The coloring of the print is different from the one on the German Album and
a little bit nicer.

All in all that pack really seems to be a recycling box for unsold Rosa
Albums (1-6), that even still have the old prices printed on them.
(The priced of all Albums were raised just this month!)
I haven t seen any of the other Life of scrooge limited Editions, but i
think it is quite save to say that this one maybe the most uninteresting of
them.

Now to Album #0: besides the mentioned Stories it also contains quite long
comments from Don about them. And he is even mentioning that he used real
historic people for the story and hopes that Ehapa also uses them for their
translation. But of course they still use "funny names" for the historic
characters...at least it is nice from Don to mention it...

The last 10 pages contain information about the chapters 1 to 12 and look
just like a translation from the Gladstone comments (or maybe from Don
Rosa & Dan Shanes Webpage). But only text ... no visual references or
anything like that...

TO THE EGMONT PEOPLE:
Does anyone have informations about release dates and Prices of the Life of
Scrooge HArdcover books?

DON:
I guess you have seen both prints (from Ehapa and Gladstone).
Are they similar in appearance or what are the differences.

On Oct 6, 3:39pm, David B. Fenske wrote:
> Subject: Re: Sorcerer's Apprentice

> >PS: Internet readily provided this quote:
> > "To my mind, Fantasia is the greatest contribution motion pictures have
> made
> > within the ten years in which I have been actively engaged in community
> work
> > for better films. It should be seen by every child and every adult,
> over and
> > over again."
> > -- Educator Martha W. D. Addams
>
> Oh, I heartily disagree. I first saw Fantasia about 5 years ago, and
> didn't really enjoy it at all. I thought it was very uneven in quality,
> much of it quite boring, and the last part too dark and grimy, especially
> for younger kids. Quotes like the one above fascinate me, not because she's
> wrong [:-)], but because movies in general can provoke such a wide range of
> reactions in viewers. Of course books and comics [and the particular
> "cluttered" art style of a particular duck artist] do this too...
>
It sounds like a contemporary quote (i.e., from the time the movie
first came out). I can sorta see that some people might be wildly
enthusiastic -- especially an "educator" who has been "actively
engaged in community work for better films." One thing that's
struck me as I read more about the cultural history of the earlier
part of the century is how much of a gulf there was between "high"
and "low" art, and how much scorn and contempt champions of high
art had for purveyors of "trash" to the low-browed masses. Some
of that has persisted into our day, of course, but the terms of
the debate have changed: high art itself has come under attack by
some for being the manifestation of dead white European males,
the stuffy critics of yore have all died off and have been replaced
by younger people who grew up enjoying popular entertainment and
don't reflexively dismiss it, etc. Anyway, in the circa 1940
time-frame, some people like this Addams might easily have seen
Fantasia as a vehicle to deliver high art to the masses, sort
of slipping cultural spinach in with the entertainment ice cream.
On the other hand, other critics denounced Fantasia for debasing
the high art it tried to popularize. And my own mother, bless her
heart, who collects Benji and Olsen Twins movies, once told me
Fantasia was the only Disney movie she ever walked out on because
it was "weird," and didn't have a story -- so it may have been a
little lost on the target audience. I've read that Disney lost
money on the initial release and the movie didn't make a profit
for many years, but it eventually did and has become something
of a minor modern classic. I'll admit that I like some parts of
it better than others, and the Sorceror's Apprentice bit was
probably the best thing in it -- the Mouse's signature performance!
(IMHO, of course.)

--Dwight Decker

Hello there.

I have been at the mailing list for a few weeks now, and I
really like what I read. To me (and apparently all others) it
seems that Disney comics is a true topic for research and
I mean real scientific research!

Anyhow, what's all that Don Rosa discussion about?
I mean, of course he has a cluttering Don-Rosa-style and
of course Gatto has a perfetto Gatto-perfectibily-style, right?

Most of us love Don's background details, and some of us
find it disturbing, but, I am sure, we would all hate if Don,
or Gatto for that matter, 'left' their style and became
ordinary, like what we unfortunalety see in many Danish
publications at the moment. I find, that substance is the
keyword here, and Don has perfectly well shown us what
that means. If he has a cluttering style, the conclusion is
evidently that: The man has a cluttering style!

I have never expected Don to like his own style, basically,
because artists that enjoy, and find complete satisfaction
in their artwork, are bound to stagnate.

---------------------------------------------------------------

I have seen some discussion about what you read or
discover as a child (eight years old or so) is of great impact
to your opinion about old versus new stories. My answer to
that is Yes! Looking through the library I found
some very old Scarpa stories, that was published relatively
late in Denmark did not mean the same to me as some
other Scarpa's I read when I was 8 years old. I don't know
how many of you who has read Capitanio/Missaglia's
'Le avventure di Paperin Cenerentolo' (I-TL-306-A, 1961)

(For Scandinavians only: It's the third story in JB 8 or KAP 8)

perhaps the most depressing duck story ever written
and emphasized by Capitanio's style which is most depressing
itself, anyway, that was rather harsh reading for a child,
and I wonder if anyone would take it seriously today!(?)
But I did. And I don't take many of todays stories that
serious - that's for sure...something has changed...
nomatter how many fuzzy details you put in the background
or whatever...

S=F8ren

NILS:

> What is, or what are, the appropriate literary references for this story,
> and/or for Disney's adaptation of it? (I guess the origin, my hunch says an
> old German folk tale, could be several hundred years older than the first
> published version.)

and

> Has old Goethe somehow touched this story, or the theme of the story?

I'm not very knowledgable when literature is concerned. But "old Goethe"
indeed "somehow touched this story". He's the the one who wrote the
famous poem "Der Zauberlehrling/The sorcerer's apprentice" in the first
place which inspired Paul Dukas (you're right Nils, it was him) to his
most famous work "L'apprenti sorcier". I don't know if Goethe used a
german folk tale. But the young apprentice misusing his undeveloped
skills and getting in trouble certainly is a motif in literature and was
even then (e.g. greek writer Lukian used it in his "Philopseudes",
didn't read it though)

Brix

NILS asked:
>When and where was this (Disneyfied) version published in comic book form?

DAVID F. replied:
>I have a comic version of TSA in an old MM giant [..]
>If nobody else answers your
>question in a day or so, I'll dig it out and give you the full title and
>issue no.

The story (drawn by Paul Murry), was published in the comic "Silly
Symphonies" #2.
It was reprinted in "Mickey Mouse Club Fun Book" (1978),
"Mickey Mouse Surprise Party" #1 (1969), WDC Digest #29 and WD Showcase
#47.

>--Harry.

--------------------------------
End of Disney comics Digest V97 Issue #218
******************************************

DON:

>"Porto" ... well, I'm supposed to call it "Oporto", and call the
>city to its south "Lisbon"... but I've realized that English imperialism
>has decided centuries ago that we will add a meaningless letter to "Porto"
>and change the 'a' in "Lisboa" to an 'n' just for fun... the same way I've
>found that we renamed Munchen as "Munich", Koeln as "Cologne", Genova as
>"Genoa" and lots of other pointless transformations of the names of other
>people's cities.

It's more complicated than that. In the case of Koeln, the "original"
name was
Colonia. The French let that evolve to Cologne, the Germans to Koeln.
The English
took over the French name. So you could say Koeln is as wrong as
Cologne, but
the people that say "Koeln" happen to live there at the moment.
Anyway, you can't say the English "renamed" the cities as a result of
imperialism.

--Harry.
>(hobbies: geography, names, Disney comics, ...)

My last post received a reply via private e-mail, from
someone who's been lurking here for several months. I'm not
mentioning his name because he must have had SOME reason not to
respond publicly, even tho I can't begin to fathom what it might be.
He referred to my encounter with a very knowledgeable Disney
artist -- one who knew Bucky Bug almost as well as I do -- and
suggested that it might have been Stacia Martin, whom he calls "the
most knowledgable person in the company I know of next to Dave Smith,
the head of Archives".
It's possible. His description -- "blond hair, a broad smile,
and was, hmmm, not petite let us say" -- fits. And so does his
description "a real treat to be around". He said she occasionally
does "Chat and Draw" sessions, which sounds like the sort of thing
my daughter and I ran across that day in the mall.
So -- I think it's likely we've identified the very
knowledgeable woman who was unfazed by a request to draw Bucky Bug.
Now -- all we need is for the guy who e-mailed me to identify
himself. Anyone who can contribute like this to our ongoing
discussion ought to de-lurk.

KFITZ --
"When I grew up, political correctness was called self righteousness."
I always called it common courtesy. Surely, there are
excesses -- but I see far more racism, bile, and just plain hatred
masquerading as a legitimate response to "political correctitude"
than I do the true excesses of political correctitude itself.

"Fans of Wodehouse might also enjoy the books of Thorne Smith"
Possibly, tho I don't think Smith's appeal is nearly as great
as that of Wodehouse. I've used the latter as bedtime reading with
my kids for several years now (interspersed among the Heinlein,
Barks, T.H. White, Piers Anthony, Hal Foster, etc.). Wodehouse goes
over so well with them, I thought I'd try Thorne Smith. To prepare
myself, I reread a couple, and they just don't hold up as well.
By the way, I doubt Heinlein was a Duck fan. He was of a
generation that wouldn't have encountered Disney -- even animated
versions -- as a kid. It's possible he might have been turned on to
Ducks as an adult, but he's been so thoroughly scrutinized by
science fiction fans, it seems likely such an interest would have
been made public by now. And I doubt there would be much influence,
in any case -- Heinlein's earliest published writings are roughly
contemporary with the first appearances of Barks in comics.

DAVID --
Glad to hear the bureaucratic delays are finally over.

DON R. --
Good point, that the name I was using 50 years ago was
Donald, not Don. And tho the shortened form came into use VERY early
on, I'm not sure I could actually document my use of it before you
started. What the heck, "Don M." works.

"This is the most polite and civil newsgroup on the Internet."
I am shocked -- SHOCKED at the suggestion that anyone
communicating with this technological miracle would actually commit
an act of rudeness.

I'm not all that knowledgeable about "DuckTales" myself (tho
I keep thinking I really ought to get that way, having mostly
enjoyed what episodes I've seen). But I did read "The Girl, the Gold
Watch, and Everything" many years ago, and recognized the basic idea
of it in "On Stolen Time". And I'll wager that's where the writer of
the "DuckTales" episode got it. My take on it is that it's a very
rich idea, one that a LOT of stories can be gotten out of. Put a
different mix of characters in, or a slightly different opening
situation, and you'll get a COMPLETELY different story. So I have no
objection to seeing it reused.

TARJEI KIDD OLSEN --
Yes, there have been many little inconsistencies from one
Barks story to another -- e.g., the fact that no Cornelius Coot
statues dominate the Duckburg skyline. But the one in question --
one Beagle liking prunes and being picked on for it by the others,
versus all Beagles liking prunes -- is a little different. In this
case, the whole point of using that oddball bit of characterization,
as far as I can see, is to evoke a smile of recognition in the
long-time reader. Therefore, getting it wrong doesn't merely negate
the purpose -- it spoils the whole story by rubbing the reader's
nose in the fictionality of it and thereby shattering the willing
suspension of disbelief. I don't know how well I'm getting my
feelings across, but frankly, I thought that story would have been
better served by not having been written at all.

DAVID B. FENSKE --
I think the comic you're referring to is "Mickey Mouse
Surprise Party", which came out in October, 1968 to celebrate
Mickey's 40th anniversary. Aside from "The Sorceror's Apprentice"
and the slightly edited version of "The Brave Little Tailor"
(leaving out the parts about arriving on the set and getting into
costume), it reprinted a couple of stories not based on actual
cartoons (tho the movie projector framing device was used there as
well).

DWIGHT --
"One thing that's struck me as I read more about the cultural history
of the earlier part of the century is how much of a gulf there was
between "high" and "low" art, and how much scorn and contempt
champions of high art had for purveyors of "trash" to the low-browed
masses."
Earlier part of this century? Ha! It persists to this very
day. The obituaries of noted plagiarist Roy Lichtenstein were all
full of crap about how great he was because he was able to turn
disreputable garbage into true art. (For anyone who isn't familiar
with the name -- I don't know how well known he is outside America
-- Lichtenstein made huge piles of money by painting line-for-line
copies of comic book panels, and had such contempt for the work he
was stealing, he never even acknowledged that the actual artists
had names.)
It may be that attitude was more prevalent at the time of
FANTASIA -- or it may not. But it's still strong enough that
Lichtenstein's obituaries didn't even state it -- it was blandly
assumed, as one of the Natural Laws of the Universe in which he
lived.

Quack, Don=

RIK/GARY:

>
>I'm home now and rereading some of those comics. I do admit now that
>the recent Scrooge story "The Secret of the Incas" that I first
>dismissed after reading three pages, I went back and read it through
>trying NOT to look at the pictures. While this story is not in the
>league with Lost in the Andes, it is much better than I first thought.
>I guess I really cannot disassociate the art work from the story.

Well, I'm just back from my local comics store dealing in international
comics(and also back from seeing "Contact" for the third time ;), and I've
bought U$A 53.
So his name is Cavazzano! I recognise his art from countless pocketbooks,
but I never knew his name. Gary, would I be correct in saying you've never
printed any stories by him before(I sure haven't seen any that I can think of)?
I've actually grown to like his art. You might too, Rik, if you were as
used to the regular Norwegian Donald Duck weeklies as I am(they print some
REALLY bad art from time to time(IMHO)). His stuff is really quite good in
comparison to some I've seen. Hmmm. come to think of it, it has a kind of
wackiness to it that differs from Van Horn wackiness....(but is good anyway,
in my opinion)..His stories seem to have more *life* to them than many other
european ones....

DON R:

They recently opened a Comics Museum in Oslo, maybe Egmont are thinking of
taking you there?

|| <<<<Tarjei Kidd Olsen>>>> ||
||___________________________||
|| http://home.sol.no/~kidd/ ||
|| (Email removed) ||