Keskustelujen arkisto

RICH:
It's deinitely better to see a story censored than not to read it at
all. But isn't it ironic that in violence-flooded America of all
places, it is not appropriate to have a gun pointed at a character???
It's like they are scared that children might copy a violent Disney
comic character, but it's okay that they play Mortal Kombat and go
hunting with daddy hardly after they start walking... I'll stop here,
before I get off-topic.

KATIE:
I hope it was clear that my titanic suggestion was just a lame joke!
Quote yesterdays's 3rd Rock from the Sun: "The boat sang, just let it
be!" I liked the original Titanic gag in the Lo$ though.

ABOUT THE LONGEST STORY:
I remember that there was a 12-part story dealing with the
astrological signs published through two consecutive German "Lustige
Taschenbuecher", which each have about 260 pages, if I remeber
correctly. I have never read the story though.

Have a good day, everyone!

==
Danny Coenen

Visit me on the World Wide Web!
The Foreign Exchange Student Homepage at
http://www.geocities.com/SouthBeach/Breakers/5042 or
http://surf.to/saturnpage
_________________________________________________________
DO YOU YAHOO!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com

Claudia wrote:
> I remember a story being published many years ago here in Italy, (not a
> wonderful one indeed), whose title was "Topolino e il Paese delle Vacanze"
> ("Mickey Mouse and the Land of Holidays"), in which the whole Disney band
> went together on a holiday. It featured: Mickey Mouse, Minnie Mouse, Pluto,
> Goofy, Donald Duck, Daisy Duck, Grandma Duck, HD&L, Uncle Scrooge, Gyro
> Gearloose, Big Bad Wolf, Little Bad Wolf, The Beagle Boys, Peg Leg Pete,
> Captain Hook, the whitch from "WhiteSnow" (Crimilde? Grimilde?) and its
> glass (which was quite important in the story). I'm quoting by memory now,
> so I'm not sure whether Clarabelle Cow, Horace Horse, April, May & June and
> Magica De Spell were in it too, but I think so...
> ...are those enough?
>
> Claudia

The Magic Mirror and the Wicked Witch from Snow White were unique
to this story, making it easier to track it down. I believe this story
comes from "Mickey and Donald in Vacationland," a 1961 Western Dell
Giant, number 47. Written by John Liggera and drawn by Tony Strobl.

The entry in the DCD shows it as:

W DG 47-01 16 TS JLi T:In Vacationland [hero:DD, MM]
se : 62-32
dk : AA62-31

This info shows only Sweden and Denmark on the reprint list. I
don't know about Italy.

Clarabelle Cow, Horace Horse, April, May & June and Magica De Spell
were not in this story, but everyone else you mentioned was. The
Beagle Boys were also there.

Carey

- "Blasted kids must think I'm a whelcher!"
S. McDuck (US3 - OS 495)

Carey Furlong; Huntington Beach, California;
(Email removed); (Email removed)

DAVID GERSTEIN:
>RICH:
>You suggest that the following Gottfredson stories are banned in the USA:
>[List omitted]
> Before I go on, I hate to be a nitpicker

No, no, please do nitpick... I don't mind...really.

> but - please don't come up with lists of stories you assume are banned
> when you don't know for sure.

Well, I must say, I did preface my list by saying I wasn't certain these
*stories* were indeed banned, only that I assumed it, and I would at
least think this Mailng List was a SAFE HAVEN for asking such
controversial questions? I didn't think the List was published for
non-lister's eyes? In any case, I truly belive the posed list of
possible censored comic strips was an innocent attempt to find answers.

I realize there are folks, like yourself, who actually WORK with the
Disney Company (at varying levels) who lurk and ocassionally reply to
this list, but I don't understand why my question about "censored" or
"banned" stories should NOT be discussed, especially HERE. Isn't this
a forum for sharing ideas and opinions about our favorite subject
matter: Disney Comics?

> The wrong eyes could get ahold of your list and, whether it were based
> in fact or not, it could *become* fact. (As happened when the Overstreet
> Guide took it upon itself to assume that certain Barks stories were
> banned, just because in the late 1980s they hadn't seen them lately...
> in reaction to Overstreet's listings, certain stories got banned when
> they hadn't actually been banned before!)

Which is my whole reason for asking in the first place. My comments were
phrased in the form of a question, not a statement of fact..which is
what
I honestly meant.

> As it is, Disney hasn't taken official positions on many of the stories
> you list. I've certainly never seen the harmless "New Girlfriend" on a
> list of banned stories; it's just that nobody's ever thought to reprint
> it before. Same goes for "High Society" and many, many others I could
> name.

Again, this is the reason I asked HERE. Everytime I've asked Gladstone,
or read in their "Letters" and "Editorial" pages, comments concerning
"Why some stories haven't been printed" (especially WRT to Gottfredson's
MM tales), their ONLY reply is [paraphrased] "Disney will not allow us
to print those stories"...if that's not censorship, I don't know what it
I guess.

> Other stories aren't exactly *banned* - but if they were
> reprinted, there'd be censorship, probably to the degree of dropping a
> couple of controversial strips. "Mr. Slicker" is one; the suicide
> sequence has been disallowed, but that's about three pages of a 50+ page
> story, and the sequence can be removed without leaving traces.

Would that be the same "suicide" segment that is presented in both
versions
of "Mickey Mouse in Color"? If it's allowed to be printed there, why
can't
we see the entire story? It could easily have been printed in it's
entirety
within that book, if not in Gladstone's WDC.

> In "Love Trouble," *one* strip is objected to, and again is enough of a
> throwaway that its absence wouldn't be felt.

Then why not reprint the tale minus that one strip? It would be so very
nice to see something like a slightly editted version of "Love Trouble"
(which hasn't seen print for decades) rather than to see "The Seven
Ghosts"
reprinted for the 5th or 6th time (in several formats) in less than 20
years.

> "The Great Orphanage Robbery" is, or at least was, another case; it was
> actually up for reprint from Disney Comics with blackface and dialect
> to be deleted during the (one-week-long) stage-play sequence.

Yes, I am aware of the "Uncle Tom's Cabin" segment, and I can fully
understand why it would not be advisible for Disney to allow that tale
to be reprinted, at least not with that segment. I know that the idea
of the character's putting on a play to raise money for the Orphanage
was central to the story, so the only way it could be printed is if
the actual play was deleted, or substituted with something less
controversial. Purists might be offended should the tale be so
radically
altered, while politically correct puritan would be offended if it
wasn't,
so maybe this is a prime example of something indeed "censored/banned"?

> So as you see, choosing to define a story as "banned" relates to whether
> you're willing to publish the thing in censored form.

I would think that a simple commentary within the Editorial column of
the
book where it is appearing, explaining any changes, would suffice should
a
publisher decide to make appropriate changes and publish the tale in
it's
new form? At least, when feasible, a story would see print again, even
if
slightly altered (such as changing a stereotyped "black" character into
a less conspicuos "white" character, etc. I can live with that.

> For Disney Comics and Gladstone I, this didn't matter. With Gladstone II,
> I observe - I think - the feeling that a story's best left unreprinted
> than printed in a censored form (catch me if I'm wrong, Gary).

See, here again, it's relly just a matter of having no where to seek
this
info... The folks who are "in the know" aren't talking, but rather just
skirting the issue entirely. Already you've shed more light on the
subject
than anyone in the idustry would... Why do Disney's publisher have to
walk on eggshells even when not actually printing the tales. Certainly
discussing the merits and demerits of these tales can't be wrong in
THIS forum?

About the "Nazi" and "Cannibal" stories, I also understand the your
point,
and have really no problem with what I assume are Disney's reasons for
not
wanting to see those tales reprinted (probably for the same reasons many
of the older Disney animated shorts are editted or no longer aired on
the Disney Channel).

As far as my reasons for wanting a list is because I'd like to know what
tales are currently not being allowed for reprinting, and why. I'm just
not a person who accepts a response like, when he asks "Why?" he's is
told
"Because I said so, that's why!" That's not an answer. The tales I
listed
were an example of many of the tales I had *not* seen Gladstone I or II
reprint, and when specific requests were made in the Letters column, I
recall Gladstone's reply being "We've printed everything that Disney
will
allow at this time" (also paraphrased from memory), which would mean
that
even "New Girlfriend", by default, was not allowed by Disney. WRT that
story, the rumour is that Disney has censored it because it presented a
girlfriend for Mickey other than Minnie, which is the reverse of
"Mickey's
Rival" and "Love Trouble", and as the rumour goes, this was not
"appropriate" for Disney's "First Couple". Could this be true?

If I can't ask my questions about what is considered "censored" or
"banned"
WRT older Disney comics on this List, and since Gladstone won't tell me,
and Dave Smith at the Disney Archives doesn't seem to care, and the
folks
at "Disney News Magazine" don't know... who can I ask? Or are you
suggesting that I should just sit back and be grateful for what
Gladstone
DOES give us, and stop asking so many impetuos questions about things
that aren't allowed to be discussed?

Until someone gives a straight answer about what is and is not allowed
WRT Disney's older comics, us fans are left in the cold without knowing
why, which, of course, leads to the very speculation that started this.

The issues of "censored/banned" material and America's dilemma of
"re-re-re-reprinted" material seem to be intrinsically intertwined,
meaning, beacause fans are requesting/demanding early material, and
Gladstone can't/won't give anything *fresh* we just keep getting the
same stuff over and over again. The recently published re-re-reprints
in "The Biggest Big Mickey Mouse" book are a prime example of this.

Truly I thank God for what little new foreign MM material we DO get
(like the REALLY GOOD David Gerstein tales, for example). :-)

DANNY COENEN:
> RICH:
> It's deinitely better to see a story censored than not to read it at
> all. But isn't it ironic that in violence-flooded America of all
> places, it is not appropriate to have a gun pointed at a character???

Yes, in a world where TMNT or Power Rangers can constantly kick butt,
and "bad guys" often die or at least bleed, and children gobble up all
the related toys, it does amaze me how much Disney forces itself to walk
on eggshells. It's all political, I guess. :-)

RE: DIPPY DAWG & TOBY TORTOISE in "The Defective Agency":
> All the pages of "The Kidnapped Nephews" are now on-line. If you read the
> first pages before, it might be a good idea to do so again, 'cause Rich
> Bellacera has been kind enough to improve the dialogue.
>
> The pages are located at:
> http://www.geocities.com/Paris/Metro/7211/detective.html

I should probably add, WRT the re-translating that was done into
English,
for anyone who has access to the original "English" versions, please
understand that if it doesn't match exactly it's because Per-Erik was
working from the Swedish script, and I was attempting to help rephrase
things into a form that made more sense to Americans... This, obviously,
was done to the best of our ability with what there was to work with.

The case has been settled out of court at the 11th hour...as so many of
them are in our American judicial system.

Carl is a free man!

News and details will follow.

RICH BELLACERA, 30 APRIL 1998:

> so it was like the cartoon "Donald's Diary" where Donald leaves to join
> the Foreign Legion at the end to avoid marrying Daisy. [...] CURIOSITY:
> Whenever Disney characters run off or away, in older tales, they always
> run to the Foreign Legion (Donald, Mickey, Ellsworth, and I think, even
> Pluto...hmmmm).

Not only in Disney-comics, because I also remember it happening in a
"Suske en Wiske" album (a Belgian comic book series by the late Willy
Vandersteen, very popular in The Netherlands, Belgium and possibly also
France). I remember there is also an old Mickey b/w which takes place in
the Foreign Legion (right, David?).

Now that the subject has turned up here, can somebody tell me a short
history of what the Foreign Legion really is/was? I think it must be
some kind of army which hires people to fight for them and which mostly
attracted unhappy people at the time, but this is what I guess from the
comics reffering to it. Was the Foreign Legion only located in North
Africa or also in other places?

Just when I began to think Barks never referred to the Foreign Legion,
I remembered the homemade ice-boat story (WDC 174) submitted to Western
on 22 April 1954. In the last panel one nephew refers to it by saying
"In North Africa! In the *Foreign Legion*!" while showing a picture of
Donald being there. (This means that the Foreign Army must at least
have existed up to 1954.)

BTW. For the people I promised xeroxes: I have already have made a bunch
and as soon as I have time I'll sort them and post them. My question on
the Foreign Legion is no way of trying to get away from it! :-)

Greetings,

--- Daniel

- "Get a cannon! Shoot him! Stop that Giant!"
- "It's unlawful to shoot cannons in the city
limits! He'll *destroy* Duckburg before we
can get the law repealed!"
(US 36, 1961)

DON MARKSTEIN

> I'm glad you liked my modified motivation for Scrooge to
> throw a coin into the river. I was pretty pleased with how well
> it meshed with the art, too.

Well, in fact I did appreciate a lot the way you dealt with it
*technically*, but I just can't understand the *motivations*,
really, and I'm not alone, since I seem to remember others
(HARRY, KRYTON) pointing out that the situation was actually really
funny, for us...

It seem to me that what you define as glitches and flaws in Scarpa's
characterization of Scrooge is mainly it's not being "Barksian"
enough... but I can hardly see that as a "crime", so to speak...

You see, as KRYTON again pointed out, we grew up reading both
Barks and Scarpa, and are therefore accustomed with glitches and
flaws since a tender age (that probably helps), and we can live with
it, even appreciating the differences between authors, and there's
not just Barks and Scarpa, we've got all the other Italians, and
S coded stories, and Danish, Spanish and Brazilian stuff, with more
glitches and flaws that you can shake a feather at...

You seem to believe that Americans couldn't possibly cope with that...

> When I changed the bit about shooting the harpoon...
> ... It just seemed truer to the character, as
> well as more likely to get a laugh.

Well, it surely is funnier.
But again, such an "out of character" sentence was purposedly meant,
IMO, by Scarpa to underline the "conversion" of Scrooge and his new
feelings towards Mr. Bunz...

> And I'm REALLY glad you liked the language. I had loads of
> fun with Mr. Bunz's dialog!

Let's just say that, were I to retranslate the story again, I
would leave most of Scarpa's dialogue alone (whenever technically
possible), but would definitely use your Bunz-speak :-)

Re: "Black List" and censorship

DAVID (to RICH)

>So as you see, choosing to define a
>story as "banned" relates to whether you're willing to publish the thing
>in censored form. For Disney Comics and Gladstone I, this didn't matter.
>With Gladstone II, I observe - I think - the feeling that a story's best
>left unreprinted than printed in a censored form (catch me if I'm wrong,
>Gary).

Well, if they did, I'd agree. Only, to make it effective they would have
to actually print, and keep updated, the "Black List" itself, thus
allowing readers to know "what", so they might even ask themselves "why"
and, perhaps, complain with Disney.

This way, although there's little hope, I'm afraid, they (Disney) might
even change their minds and allow the story to be reprinted without *any*
censorship, in the future...

It's just the way I see it, of course, but I'd rather try to go for
"best" before accepting "less worse"...

>The Nazi story - heck, *all* the Nazi stories are controversial
>just in that they feature Nazis. That doesn't mean they're necessarily
>banned. I don't think Gladstone could get permission to use them, but
>who knows? Some kind of themed presentation down the line...

What do you mean by "controversial", here ?
*All* the stories featuring Nazis I ever read put them in the worst
possible light, which is, IMO, absolutely correct, "moral" and
educative.

Is that a fact that those stories are banned just because Nazis are
actually appearing in them ? It would be just like cancelling a
few pages from the History Book... there's already a lot of people
pretending *concentration camps* never existed...

>That leaves us with a couple of cannibal island stories...
>Maybe, there the story [Treasure's Island]
>could be reprinted with changes if the cannibals were bleached-out and
>their dialect removed. For some, no doubt, this would be unpalatable.

Well, they could be painted *green*... but then, the Martians
Anti-Defamation League would surely complain...

>I like the story enough that I wouldn't mind taking it that way.
>See - censorship is in the eye of the beholder.

Sorry, but I couldn't agree less.
Censorship, *any* kind of censorship is an absolute threath to our
freedom of thought and speech.

It means we are not considered intelligent enough to make our own
choices, notwithstanding what a *funny animals* comic might hint
for the sake of fun...

>Rules constantly change given whoever happens to be censor at a certain
>time. Making a list of stories that are presumed to be banned may keep
>one censor's objections (or one censor's presumed objections!) alive
>when another censor, looking at the situation afresh, might take a
>different stance if left to choose on his/her own. That's what I'd
>prefer to see happen.

That would be like pretending there's no censorship going on at all...
That's the core of the whole PC business, IMO, if we pretend
something "controversial" is not there, perhaps it'll go away...
and pigs will fly...

PER-ERIK

>Hm, would we want them to be published?
>Sure, I would like to se them, but I
>certainly wouldn't want them to be published. After all, there are young
>readers who might not understand that what nazism stands for is wrong.

Again, I can hardly believe it, since the way they were presented was
to make as much fun as possible of Nazis, and they were clearly the
*baddies*...
Actually, I always believed that most of the II world war related
comics and cartoons were supposed to be *educative*, if not plain
propaganda, *against* the Nazis...

>...when you go on and read another story you'll find out that Mickey,
>THE HERO, is keeping Thursday in a cage. I'm sure that will confuse
>a lot of the younger readers.

But the same readers are not supposed to be confused by what Donald
sometimes does to his own nephews...?

Really, I don't think kids are stupid, you see... they *can*
distinguish between reality and fiction, especially, again, when
funny animals are concerned...

I did read those stories as a kid, and they surely didn't affect
my own "vision" of the world as, I'm sure, is the case with most
fellow contributors, here. So, if those stories did *us* no harm,
why would we want to *protect* a younger generation from them ?

>I'm just trying to point out that there are good reasons WHY
>these stories are banned.

Sorry to repeat myself, but there's no such thing as *good reasons*
for censorship...

>Of course, these are just my personal thoughts and I hope no one feels
>affended by them.

Same goes for me.

DANNY

>But isn't it ironic that in violence-flooded America of all
>places, it is not appropriate to have a gun pointed at a character???
>It's like they are scared that children might copy a violent Disney
>comic character, but it's okay that they play Mortal Kombat and go
>hunting with daddy hardly after they start walking...

Well said.

Back to less "hot" subjects... :-)

LUCA (welcome back, BTW)

Re: Greatest number of major characters in a single story

>"60 anni insieme con Topolino" (6O years all together with Mickey),
>published on "Topolino", starting from # 1984 (12/5/93)...

>Aronud 55 characters.
>Maybe I got the record! Or not?

And I thought I'd found a good one with 23... while you *wrote*
one with 55...
I surrender. The record is yours. Chapeau ! ;-)
But then, Italian stories weren't allowed, so I think we're
both disqualified... ;-)

LUNA STORTA

Re: TOPOLINO D'ORO

>I have a chronology of "Il Topolino d'Oro"...
>...there are 33 numbers of
>this publication, and that it came out monthly from july
>1970 to febraury 1974... there must be something wrong:
>in between there are 44 months...
>Is there someone who has more precises notes??

The publication was suspended between issues #15 (9/71) and #16 (9/72).

>Yes, Renata Rizzo was Martina's wife, but it seems to me that she never
>wrote anything, since she *signed* some plots, for some fiscal reasons.

Oops... is that a fact ? (I guess the Martinas estate wouldn't be too
happy if we insisted on this subject... ;-)

Cheers

Eta Beta

- ------------------------------
email to : (Email removed)
or to : (Email removed)
- ------------------------------

Since some people seem to be interested in novels with Disney characters I
will mention that at least one such was published in Sweden in the 70's .It was titled Spökhotellet (The Ghost Hotel) and featured Donald taking
over operation of a dilapidated hotel previously owned by Scrooge.
However, Scrooge by chance discovers that there might be a treasure in the
building...

Neither author nor illustrator is credited and there is no mentioning of
any original title, which seems to indicate that the book was written in
Sweden and not translated from any other language. Still, some texts in
the illustrations look as if they could have been retouched.

The book was the first in a series, but I am not sure if any other parts
were ever released.

/F

> But I thought it was established that Dickie Duck was his "granddaughter",
> well she is Goldie's granddaughter.... Hmmmm, so Scrooge and Goldie did
> do other things than just mine gold those days in the Klondike, eh? :-)

;-) *wink*We all have our personal theories...

> But now this tale of Don's calling HD&L's mother Scrooge's granddaughter
> is peculiar... surely your not suggesting Dickie is their mother? ;-) jk

Tee hee.--------
RICH:

> n that cartoon Daisy has Triplet brothers. And if, like Don suggests,
> Daisy's Brother married Donald's Sister, Della, and had HD&L, and Daisy's
> Sister had AM&J, the idea of Donald & Daisy have two sets of triplets is
> hardly a surprise :-) It's genetically hardwired in their genes... :-)

I was about to make the same comment! They'd have a whole flock of kids...er, ducklings! :-)

> Yes, that's the same Belle Duck I was referring to. I've placed a scan of
> her at http://www.jps.net/xephyr/SCANS/belle.gif

Oh! Thankyouthankyouthankyou thank you! (Belle is a rather hefty gal, isn't she? ;-)
-------
ALBERTO:

> Did I manage to eliminate that HTLM trash my messages used to
> carry with them? Hope so.

I'm afraid not. :-( Thanks for trying, tho'.

-------
Danny Coenen :

> It's like they are scared that children might copy a violent Disney
> comic character, but it's okay that they play Mortal Kombat and go
> hunting with daddy hardly after they start walking.

I agree. It is a bit absurd.

> KATIE:
> I hope it was clear that my titanic suggestion was just a lame joke!
> Quote yesterdays's 3rd Rock from the Sun: "The boat san(K), just let it
> be!" I liked the original Titanic gag in the Lo$ though.

Oh, yes, I understood. I was just taking the silliness a bit further. :-) (And I LOVE 3rd
Rock from the Sun! GREAT SHOW!)

"I'll never let go, Scrooge!"
"You'd better not! Do you have any idea how much that diamond in your pocket is
worth?"*grin*-----

> ...or at least an adoptive son: the mother (or the father) of Dickie
> Duck: we discussed about this many digests ago, and I still have the
> idea that Goldie could had a son before meeting Scrooge...

As I said before, we all have our own theories... Only Scrooge and Goldie (or maybe just
Goldie.....) know for sure! :-)

Quackcerely,

Katie

--------------------------------
End of Disney comics Digest V98 Issue #113
******************************************