Keskustelujen arkisto

Frank (& Claudia):

> if e.g. Gladstone wants to use a new European story,
> they most likely can't (or don't want to) use the European coloring, but
> will do their own.

One reason for not wanting to use the European colouring is that
Gladstone changes the text balloons, so their English texts would fit
better.

The Dutch editors once told me that they could not use Gladstone's
colors for technical reasons (incompatible systems or so). This may also
be true vice versa.

--Harry.
Harry Fluks, Leidschendam, The Netherlands

JUMBOBOG no. 205 has just been published, and one of the
stories is credited to a "Bancells". Who or what is Bancells?
For it seems that plenty of stories in the JUMBOBOG, stories
that previously had more or less unknown artists, actually *are*
by this Bancells. The drawing reminds one of Vicar, but it is
generally bolder (too simplified word, but...)

Another artist, Gorlero, has suddenly changed from normal
I-coding to D-coding, does anyone have details about that.

The new crediting politics of Egmont comics surely
answers a lot of questions and gives reason to dusins more :-) :-)

S=F8ren

--------------------------------
End of Disney comics Digest V98 Issue #124
******************************************

FRANK FABIAN &
CLAUDIA REGE CAMBRIN --

I'm not what you'd call an expert in the ins and outs of story
trading among Disney publishers, but my GUESS about coloring is
that stories are re-colored because of the requirements of
different printing techniques. The coloring Dell used on Barks
stories that were printed via letterpress on newsprint in the
1950s would result in a virtually unreadable product if re-used
by Egmont in the (I assume) offset-printed, slick-paper comics
it puts out today. Not that they can't use the same colors if
they really want to, but the production would have to be re-done
from scratch.

Quack, Don

From: Katie Sullivan
> I wrote: > I used scans from Lo$ or Theodore Roosevelt to illustrate a
report I did for Social
> Studies class last week.
> And Rosa responded: Oh, no! You shouldn't have done that!!! Now Disney
will claim it owns your
> entire homeroom!
>>LOL! I *did* put a credit at the bottom identifying you as the artist and
the Walt Disney Co. as the
>>copyright holder. So hopefully no mice in black suits will show up at my
door! ;-)

In case you didn't know it, Disney does not agree with the "fair use"
portion of copyright law. The *law* says that you can use any copyrighted
image in a limited manner to illustrate a "scholarly" discussion. Disney
does not agree with that because they're big enough to be able to slap
people with lawsuits that they (Disney) would ultimately loose, but which
the poor defendant could never afford to defend himself against. (This might
come as a surprise to you Europeans since I understand that European justice
is not on the side of the party with the money, as it is here.) So if you
use a Disney image for "scholarly purposes", and you plaster it with
copyright notices, this will NOT protect you. A word to the wise.
Here's an example: before I send my original art off to Europe, I always
make a set of copies of it, since eventually that airplane is gonna crash
into the North Sea and all those 2-3 months of work would be lost if I
didn't protect myself. However, the copy stores are so terrified of Disney
threats that they refuse to even make copies of my own original art (when
the law tells them to simply not copy printed, copyrighted images). I must
get official written permission from the Disney Co. to show the copy store
that I am sanctioned to make copies... however, the official permission
states very clearly that I can only make ONE copy and that the copy is the
private property of the Disney corporation, even though they will "allow Don
Rosa to take charge of it". All I want to know is why I'm paying hundreds of
dollars each year making copies that are NOT my property! Who do I send the
bill to???
So, in other words, all kidding aside, Disney *does* say they own your
school report, fully and completely, if you used a Disney image on the
paper. And you can't afford to disagree with them.

FRANCOIS:
I really thought you were kidding when you said the new PICSOU smelled like
"garlic". I didn't take you seriously because I didn't realize that "bad
smells" was the topic of the issue. I have come upon a magazine or book from
time to time that had a weird odor about the ink or paper, and knowing that
European comics are printed on much fancier paper than American comics, I
thought that PICSOU might have simply changed printers and been using a new
combination of inks/papers that was a bit "stronger" than usual.

My apologies for this off-topic posting, but Michael Naiman was telling me
about an article in Comic Book Marketplace about collecting Australian comic
books. Michael seems to be away at the moment, so I was wondering whether
anyone could tell me how someone in Australia can get hold of "Comic Book
Marketplace" - particularly the article I just mentioned.

Thanks.

David King
(Email removed)

"Mankind has not so much power to receive as the genius has power to give."

Schopenhauer

To Soeren Krarup (and to all the Web friends)

> Another artist, Gorlero, has suddenly changed from normal
> I-coding to D-coding, does anyone have details about that.

I assume the artist you speak about is Pasquale (nicknamed "Lino")
Gorlero. Well, he worked for Disney Italia, until an year ago or so.
Later he was "scolded" for a "strange thing" he made in a story drawn
by him (if I well remember, actually it was discussed and/or showed in
a jif on this same list). A columnist "discovered" the "strange
thing", wrote an article about on an italian newspaper and everything
was put "on line". So, the artist *stopped* to work for Disney Italia.
And started to draw for another publisher. That's (quite) all.
>
Luca

Hello,

In the last digest Joe Torcivia wrote in reply to a message from me:

>> "Maybe it's not Murry's fault, since he didn't wrote
>>the stories he drew, but to me it's the Murry's Mickey
>>what ruined Mickey's image in the States.
>>Hey, obviously it's just IMHO!"

>Excuse me? PAUL MURRY? RUINED MICKEY'S IMAGE IN THE
>STATES? Are you even FROM "the States", that you could
>make such a claim?

First, it's not a claim, it's JUST my idea! Then, maybe I had
to say "ruined Mickey's image in the idea of many people from the USA
who are on this list".

>Me, I'll never presume to comment on what makes the
>worldwide Disney comics so much more popular than their
>North American counterparts! Why? Because I've seen
>relatively few "foreign" (to me) Disney comics - and
>certainly have not "grown up" within the cultures which
>produce and consume them!

I didn't see a lot of "foreing" (to me) Disney comics too, in fact I've
got my idea about Mickey's image not only from comics (BTW many of Murry
stories have been published in Italy), but even with readings from this
list and with some private mail with US Disney fans, who grew within the
cultures which produce and consume these comics.

>I read my first Paul Murry MM comic in 1959: "The
>Secret of the Swamp" (MM #66), it was enough to spark a
>lifelong admiration for the man's work, through
>his last story published in 1984 - and well beyond.

In your humble opinion, I suppose... ;-)
BTW you surely have a better knowledge of Murry's works than me, so if
you could tell me where to find his *best* stories, I'll surely try to
get the best from them!

>I've often remarked to Egmont's David Gerstein (who
>professes a distinct preference for the "boyish" Mickey
>of Gottfredson's thirties period) that "MY" Mickey
>(Murry) is "HIS" Mickey as an adult. "His" Mickey is
>"under 20". "My" Mickey is about 30-35. In short,
>Murry and his writers matured the Mouse into a worthy
>comics character.

Well, here we are on completely opposite sides!
*I* see that Mickey as a poorer character, really: I read many stories
from Murry, even when I was a child, but I never really liked them:
there was no "climax" to the action, nor ambiguosly-defined characters
(I'm thinking about Hoosat, Uncle Gudger, the poet-spy, etc.) As soon as
I started to read them I was able to imagine (and like me many other
people) how the ending was going to be like, who was the villain, etc.
And it was not only because of the story, but even from the art: the
villains in Murry's stories can be always identified without any effort,
not the same in Gottfredson: think about Uncle Max!

>And basically kept the adventurous Mickey (...perhaps
>ANY type of Mickey) alive during a time in which hardly
>any other American talents did so!

Yes, here I agree, but the question is:
WHY weren't there any other talents?
I *DON'T* know the answer to this.
I can only imagine that Gottfredson made of Mickey such a character that
it wasn't possible anymore to produce "normal" comic book stories with
him (and neither daily stories, since they stopped him in 1955).
The character they needed for printing comic books was a different one
from the one they inherited from Gottfredson, so they changed him!

>A daring detective, with both feet firmly planted on
>the ground (in almost direct contract to the naive
>Goofy, the "dreamer" Donald, and Scrooge; who was
>defined by his wealth).

In changing MM personality, they kept *JUST SOME* aspects from
Gottfredson saga, and went on repeating them:
Mickey IS a daring detective, Goofy IS naive, O'Hara IS NOT able to find
his own shoes without Mickey's help, etc..
A little bit reductive, isn't it?

>Remember, during the period in question, there was NO
>Gottfredson of any kind to compare with! Murry, quite
>simply, was "The Man", when it came to the Mouse!

And maybe HERE is the point:
Donald Duck started his presence in comics by Taliaferro, whose works
introduced DD to the great public, then came Barks, who made DD's
personality explode giving him endless aspects (well, HE did *many*
other things too, but that's another story...).
About MM it was the opposite: MM was introduced by Gottfredson, and then
came Murry, whose work didn't reach the same results of the Barksian
one.
But, as you said, he was "The Man", and so what he did was "law", all
the other artists who came after Murry (including some Italians) had to
develope their work on Murry's one, that was developed (as said before)
on *some* aspects of Gottfredson's one: while DD's personality aquired
many more aspects in years, MM lost some of his owns, so his character
became poorer.
I know I said it in an horrible english, forgive me and please ask me
for clarifications, if you need them :-(

>When the artistic standards of their comics slipped
>dramatically in 1969 (and never recovered), Paul Murry
>delivered quality to the last.
>Sure his line slipped a little since the 1950s, but he
>was more than head and shoulders above any of his
>contemporaries of the seventies and eighties!

100% agree!

>I'd say (...in MY "HO"), that if anything "...ruined
>Mickey's image in the States", it was his seeming
>endless portaryal as the "insipid bandleader"
>hosting the Mickey Mouse Club repeats throughout the
>fifties and sixties.

Mickey as "insipid bandleader" appeared in Italy too, with "Il club di
Topolino" (Mickey's club), but this didn't caused any damage to his
image, MAYBE because it was supported by GOOD stories: in Italy, soon
after Gottfredson, came Scarpa, whose work is heavly based on
Gottfredson-Walsh one and is the ideal prosecution.
Just some example: Mickey's aunt Topolinda is another ambiguosly-defined
character, and her nose is the same of Mickey's Uncle Maximilian from
the house of mistery; MM isn't the typical self-confidant character of
many stories: he has a misteryous past (kidnapped when was a baby by
Pete), he can be used by the Phantom Blot to KILL O'Hara, etc.

>the Walt Disney Company's (...oh, excuse me... "Disney
>Enterprises, Inc. - Walt apparently has nothing to with
>this puppy, even in name, it seems)

:-)

Well, I like it: the discussion is getting interesting! Keep it alive!
;-)

Ciao,

- Paolo

______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com