To Marco Barlotti, Rich Bellacera, and to all the other guys curious
to know what happened in the "strange" Gorleto story for which he was
"scolded".
Well, I want to let you discover it personally (for people living in
Italy who collect "Topolino", it shall not be a problem).
You must take the issue 1202 of the pocket, come out in date "12
marzo 1996". Then, you must go to look for the story drawn by Gorlero
from page 151 on. Then, look for the fifth page of it.
I'll not add anything more for now; I can also add that editors,
letterer, colorist and so on (also working with panels in a larger
size) never discovered the "thing" before the issue were distributed
to the readership.
The first one who discovers what's goin' on, shall win a bboklet from
me!
Bye!
Luca
Author
Topic: 199805
(261 messages)
Luca Boschi
Fron Luca Boschi on Gorlero
Message 196 -
1998-05-20 at 15:15:50
Fluks, H.W.
Bjoern: Story summaries
Message 197 -
1998-05-20 at 15:43:10
Bjoern Staerk: welcome, and sorry for the late reply.
You wrote:
> I looked at the Disney Comics database associated with this
> list, and I was very impressed. The only thing I missed was some
> summaries of stories
On Per's website
(http://www.update.uu.se/~starback/disney-comics/database.html)
there is the possibility to search for a story, and then add a summary
to that story.
Everyone can add summaries, so go ahead! 8-)
> (and what about images from the more famous
> ones?)
We have been thinking of scanning the first panel (or page) of every
Disney story (possibly starting with the more famous ones). But since
that means a lot of work and a lot of disk space, this is a long-term
project.
> The name and writer on its own is rarely enough to identify a
> story I might have read a long time ago.
That's why we also have information like appearing characters in the
Database. Maybe we add a serach possibility on the summaries in the
future.
BTW: a new version of the Disney comics Database is in the making. It
will be available soon.
--Harry.
--------------------------------
End of Disney comics Digest V98 Issue #126
******************************************
You wrote:
> I looked at the Disney Comics database associated with this
> list, and I was very impressed. The only thing I missed was some
> summaries of stories
On Per's website
(http://www.update.uu.se/~starback/disney-comics/database.html)
there is the possibility to search for a story, and then add a summary
to that story.
Everyone can add summaries, so go ahead! 8-)
> (and what about images from the more famous
> ones?)
We have been thinking of scanning the first panel (or page) of every
Disney story (possibly starting with the more famous ones). But since
that means a lot of work and a lot of disk space, this is a long-term
project.
> The name and writer on its own is rarely enough to identify a
> story I might have read a long time ago.
That's why we also have information like appearing characters in the
Database. Maybe we add a serach possibility on the summaries in the
future.
BTW: a new version of the Disney comics Database is in the making. It
will be available soon.
--Harry.
--------------------------------
End of Disney comics Digest V98 Issue #126
******************************************
Ram Samudrala
Disney copyright
Message 198 -
1998-05-20 at 15:47:03
From: Mikko Pohjola <(Email removed)>
>Don wrote a descriptive and interesting essay on Disney Company's view on
>the copyright law. But does this mean only pictures credited to Disney, or
>all pictures of their characters? For example, if Sergio Aragones made a
>Mickey Mouse scetch on a Mad margin (making fun of the character's
>appearance, not using the character as itself), could Disney claim to own
>that? If a Disney comics fanzine publishes an article about Carl Barks and
>illustrates it with a part of a comics panel with Scrooge in it, could
>Disney claim to own that? If I make a web page about Disney and insert a
>silhouette picture of Donald, could Disney claim to own that? Or would it
>be enough to use "All pictures (c) Walt Disney Company"?
There are three issues:
1. What Disney claims it owns.
2. What Disney actually owns according to a reasonable interpretation of
the law.
3. What Disney gets as a result of superior legal power.
It so happens in this world (in the US at least) (1) and (3) are very
similar. What MAD does is parody which is quite strongly protected
here, and MAD, being ultimately under Time-Warner (I believe EC
Publications is owned by Time-Warner, but I could be wrong), can
protect itself if push came to shove. But if you did the same parody
on a web page and made it popular, it's very likely Disney will come
after you and it's very likely you will lose. Anyone see /A Time to
Kill/ the movie?
To answer your questions, Disney can claim anything. Do its claims
have merit? Not that I can see, but it's up to a jury or a judge. Do
you have the money to face it in court on its terms? It's very likely
Disney would just prevent you from doing what you did unless what you
created was so good that it could exploit it. In which case, it would
get you to back off and basically copy it.
This is a toned-down version of the Disney's term of use policy
<http://www.disney.com/Legal/conditions_of_use.html>, but there was a
time when I recall reading language that basically said that if you
used any of their images, etc. in a work of yours, that work could
potentially belong to them. I'm surprised they toned it down so much.
The fact that they say you waive "moral rights" (attribution, etc.)
really hints at what they do. It's Walt Disney's The Jungle Book and
Walt Disney's Alice in Wonderland.
My observations (not limited to Disney) is that if you are a weaker
opponent, a corporation will go after you and essentially crush you,
not with the merits of arguments but through sheer legal force. From
U-Haul to Fox to Disney to Hasbro, companies pursue IP issues
aggressively. There is absolutely no reason for them to be nice--the
lawyers are generally paid anyway and it gives them more control than
the law permits (consider the whole shrinkwrap license issue). I bet
if corporations had their way, most of them would like to do away
entirely with fair use.
As far as it being inspired by Scrooge, remember, he made it square.
This is all discounting the fact that these corporations weild
enormous lobbying power.
I don't mean to cast corporations in an "evil" light or any such
thing. I just think it's a natural thing for it to do, as natural as a
snake eating a fly. The fundamental composition of corporations in
the US make it easily possible without really having to think about
what is right or wrong.
I think in life you should always do what you think is right (without
hypocrisy, of course). I think the best thing to do is (i) either be
subversive about it, or (ii) be rich enough to face them on their
terms.
>From: Katie Sullivan <(Email removed)>
>Yikes! I guess I won't do *that* again! Thanks for the warning.
>How @#&$%$! What a shame that a company that produces such neat
>entertainment has to be such a @$#&% about things like this. :-(
Yeah, I find this a very disturbing thing personally and I agonise
over it a lot. By all counts, I should not be encouraging Disney (and
I don't). At the same time, I like what they enable to produce to a
certain extent. I certainly think things have gotten worse over the
years. I think it's our duty to educate people to truly appreciate
the creators as much as possible, and make this knowledge known. For
example, many many people accept that Walt Disney created Mickey
Mouse, Donald Duck, and even Uncle Scrooge. The whole "Walt Disney's
Uncle Scrooge" irritates me. Fine, they take the money. But the credit
too? The greater the enpowerment to the creators, the more likely
things will change.
There's a very subversive Simpsons episode about this (re: the
creation of Mickey Mouse).
BTW, so who really created Mickey Mouse and Donald Duck?
--Ram
(Email removed) || http://www.ram.org || http://www.twisted-helices.com/th
When the going gets tough and the stomach acids flow.
The cold wind of conformity is nipping at your nose.
Some trendy new atrocity brings you to your knees.
Come with us and we'll sail the seas of cheese. ---Primus
>Don wrote a descriptive and interesting essay on Disney Company's view on
>the copyright law. But does this mean only pictures credited to Disney, or
>all pictures of their characters? For example, if Sergio Aragones made a
>Mickey Mouse scetch on a Mad margin (making fun of the character's
>appearance, not using the character as itself), could Disney claim to own
>that? If a Disney comics fanzine publishes an article about Carl Barks and
>illustrates it with a part of a comics panel with Scrooge in it, could
>Disney claim to own that? If I make a web page about Disney and insert a
>silhouette picture of Donald, could Disney claim to own that? Or would it
>be enough to use "All pictures (c) Walt Disney Company"?
There are three issues:
1. What Disney claims it owns.
2. What Disney actually owns according to a reasonable interpretation of
the law.
3. What Disney gets as a result of superior legal power.
It so happens in this world (in the US at least) (1) and (3) are very
similar. What MAD does is parody which is quite strongly protected
here, and MAD, being ultimately under Time-Warner (I believe EC
Publications is owned by Time-Warner, but I could be wrong), can
protect itself if push came to shove. But if you did the same parody
on a web page and made it popular, it's very likely Disney will come
after you and it's very likely you will lose. Anyone see /A Time to
Kill/ the movie?
To answer your questions, Disney can claim anything. Do its claims
have merit? Not that I can see, but it's up to a jury or a judge. Do
you have the money to face it in court on its terms? It's very likely
Disney would just prevent you from doing what you did unless what you
created was so good that it could exploit it. In which case, it would
get you to back off and basically copy it.
This is a toned-down version of the Disney's term of use policy
<http://www.disney.com/Legal/conditions_of_use.html>, but there was a
time when I recall reading language that basically said that if you
used any of their images, etc. in a work of yours, that work could
potentially belong to them. I'm surprised they toned it down so much.
The fact that they say you waive "moral rights" (attribution, etc.)
really hints at what they do. It's Walt Disney's The Jungle Book and
Walt Disney's Alice in Wonderland.
My observations (not limited to Disney) is that if you are a weaker
opponent, a corporation will go after you and essentially crush you,
not with the merits of arguments but through sheer legal force. From
U-Haul to Fox to Disney to Hasbro, companies pursue IP issues
aggressively. There is absolutely no reason for them to be nice--the
lawyers are generally paid anyway and it gives them more control than
the law permits (consider the whole shrinkwrap license issue). I bet
if corporations had their way, most of them would like to do away
entirely with fair use.
As far as it being inspired by Scrooge, remember, he made it square.
This is all discounting the fact that these corporations weild
enormous lobbying power.
I don't mean to cast corporations in an "evil" light or any such
thing. I just think it's a natural thing for it to do, as natural as a
snake eating a fly. The fundamental composition of corporations in
the US make it easily possible without really having to think about
what is right or wrong.
I think in life you should always do what you think is right (without
hypocrisy, of course). I think the best thing to do is (i) either be
subversive about it, or (ii) be rich enough to face them on their
terms.
>From: Katie Sullivan <(Email removed)>
>Yikes! I guess I won't do *that* again! Thanks for the warning.
>How @#&$%$! What a shame that a company that produces such neat
>entertainment has to be such a @$#&% about things like this. :-(
Yeah, I find this a very disturbing thing personally and I agonise
over it a lot. By all counts, I should not be encouraging Disney (and
I don't). At the same time, I like what they enable to produce to a
certain extent. I certainly think things have gotten worse over the
years. I think it's our duty to educate people to truly appreciate
the creators as much as possible, and make this knowledge known. For
example, many many people accept that Walt Disney created Mickey
Mouse, Donald Duck, and even Uncle Scrooge. The whole "Walt Disney's
Uncle Scrooge" irritates me. Fine, they take the money. But the credit
too? The greater the enpowerment to the creators, the more likely
things will change.
There's a very subversive Simpsons episode about this (re: the
creation of Mickey Mouse).
BTW, so who really created Mickey Mouse and Donald Duck?
--Ram
(Email removed) || http://www.ram.org || http://www.twisted-helices.com/th
When the going gets tough and the stomach acids flow.
The cold wind of conformity is nipping at your nose.
Some trendy new atrocity brings you to your knees.
Come with us and we'll sail the seas of cheese. ---Primus
Don Rosa
Disney Digest #126
Message 199 -
1998-05-20 at 16:25:39
>>>>>>>>>From: Mikko Pohjola
Don wrote a descriptive and interesting essay on Disney Company's view on
the copyright law. But does this mean only pictures credited to Disney, or
all pictures of their characters? For example, if Sergio Aragones made a
Mickey Mouse scetch on a Mad margin (making fun of the character's
appearance, not using the character as itself), could Disney claim to own
that?
If Sergio or anyone else did this, it would be without Disney's permission,
and Disney does NOT recognize the allowed use of a copyrighted character in
a parody (though the copyright laws do). And if such a parody is done,
Disney would claim ownership. (These are not "opinions" or accusations --
this are the way it has been explained to me by licensees and by Disney
reps, and based on my own experiences.)
>>>If a Disney comics fanzine publishes an article about Carl Barks and
illustrates it with a part of a comics panel with Scrooge in it, could
Disney claim to own that?
Disney would never give permission for a fanzine to use a Disney image,
though more do than they can keep track of and stop... but they DO say they
own that magazine if it prints their images.
>>>>If I make a web page about Disney and insert a
silhouette picture of Donald, could Disney claim to own that? Or would it
be enough to use "All pictures (c) Walt Disney Company"?
No, as I said, posting a copyright notice only is valid AFTER you get
Disney's permission to use the image, which they will not give unless you
cough up some big dough, guarantee them a major percentage of the profits
(which must increase constantly), and give them total control over the
project. ANY use of Disney images in fanzines or on web pages is forbidden.
Look... if Disney claims that they own freelance artists' artwork *without*
paying for it and *without* the agreement of the artist... if they believe
that a person's private property suddenly and automatically becomes Disney's
private property without payments or agreements, as if by magic... you can
assume they'll claim anything they wish, eh?
Another example -- When Gladstone first did an article about me in U$ #219,
they were going to use pictures of my "Capt.Kentucky" and "Lance
Pertwillaby" characters. But then they realized they couldn't do that to me
because they said Disney claimed complete ownership of *anything* published
in a Gladstone comic (except ads), and they would be giving my property to
Disney without fees or agreements. That was my first exposure to the "Disney
system" and I recall my reaction was that I wanted to send Gladstone a photo
of a junked truck in the back yard of a house I'd just bought so they could
print it in the comic and then I could call Disney and tell them to haul
their @#$% trash outta my yard. But naturally the "automatic transfer of
ownership" would only work when they wanted it to.
Don wrote a descriptive and interesting essay on Disney Company's view on
the copyright law. But does this mean only pictures credited to Disney, or
all pictures of their characters? For example, if Sergio Aragones made a
Mickey Mouse scetch on a Mad margin (making fun of the character's
appearance, not using the character as itself), could Disney claim to own
that?
If Sergio or anyone else did this, it would be without Disney's permission,
and Disney does NOT recognize the allowed use of a copyrighted character in
a parody (though the copyright laws do). And if such a parody is done,
Disney would claim ownership. (These are not "opinions" or accusations --
this are the way it has been explained to me by licensees and by Disney
reps, and based on my own experiences.)
>>>If a Disney comics fanzine publishes an article about Carl Barks and
illustrates it with a part of a comics panel with Scrooge in it, could
Disney claim to own that?
Disney would never give permission for a fanzine to use a Disney image,
though more do than they can keep track of and stop... but they DO say they
own that magazine if it prints their images.
>>>>If I make a web page about Disney and insert a
silhouette picture of Donald, could Disney claim to own that? Or would it
be enough to use "All pictures (c) Walt Disney Company"?
No, as I said, posting a copyright notice only is valid AFTER you get
Disney's permission to use the image, which they will not give unless you
cough up some big dough, guarantee them a major percentage of the profits
(which must increase constantly), and give them total control over the
project. ANY use of Disney images in fanzines or on web pages is forbidden.
Look... if Disney claims that they own freelance artists' artwork *without*
paying for it and *without* the agreement of the artist... if they believe
that a person's private property suddenly and automatically becomes Disney's
private property without payments or agreements, as if by magic... you can
assume they'll claim anything they wish, eh?
Another example -- When Gladstone first did an article about me in U$ #219,
they were going to use pictures of my "Capt.Kentucky" and "Lance
Pertwillaby" characters. But then they realized they couldn't do that to me
because they said Disney claimed complete ownership of *anything* published
in a Gladstone comic (except ads), and they would be giving my property to
Disney without fees or agreements. That was my first exposure to the "Disney
system" and I recall my reaction was that I wanted to send Gladstone a photo
of a junked truck in the back yard of a house I'd just bought so they could
print it in the comic and then I could call Disney and tell them to haul
their @#$% trash outta my yard. But naturally the "automatic transfer of
ownership" would only work when they wanted it to.
Mike Schneiderath
German comic news !
Message 200 -
1998-05-20 at 17:01:32
Hi everyone!
Out now in Germany are
-the new Micky Maus Magazine (#21) with the smallest Disney Comic of the=
World
(24 pages..20 pages of comic, Story from Barks: "Donald Duck and the
Titanic Ants", Size approx 5.5 cmx4 cm...magnifying glass included and
really needed to read it ;-)
and
-The new DD-Sonderheft #155 with two Rosa Stories ("Crocodile Collector"
and "Fit to be Pied" and 4 pages about Don Rosa with some Disney
illustrations he made for the Rocket=B4s blast comicollector....
Also announced is Don Rosa=B4s "the last Lords of Eldorado" story for next
week=B4s micky maus (#22) and it appears that the story will be printed in
one part. For the first time that I notice Don=B4s art on the cover of the
weekly german magazine (and the cover seems to be made from two panels of
the story).
That=B4s all for now...
Bye!
Mike Martin=20
------Need some more on Don Rosa ?-----------
-------Visit the D.U.C.K.hunt at-------------
http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/8024/index.html
---------------------------------------------
Out now in Germany are
-the new Micky Maus Magazine (#21) with the smallest Disney Comic of the=
World
(24 pages..20 pages of comic, Story from Barks: "Donald Duck and the
Titanic Ants", Size approx 5.5 cmx4 cm...magnifying glass included and
really needed to read it ;-)
and
-The new DD-Sonderheft #155 with two Rosa Stories ("Crocodile Collector"
and "Fit to be Pied" and 4 pages about Don Rosa with some Disney
illustrations he made for the Rocket=B4s blast comicollector....
Also announced is Don Rosa=B4s "the last Lords of Eldorado" story for next
week=B4s micky maus (#22) and it appears that the story will be printed in
one part. For the first time that I notice Don=B4s art on the cover of the
weekly german magazine (and the cover seems to be made from two panels of
the story).
That=B4s all for now...
Bye!
Mike Martin=20
------Need some more on Don Rosa ?-----------
-------Visit the D.U.C.K.hunt at-------------
http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/8024/index.html
---------------------------------------------
Per-Erik Malmström
Disney Digest #126
Message 201 -
1998-05-20 at 17:15:01
DON:
> Disney would never give permission for a fanzine to use a Disney image,
> though more do than they can keep track of and stop... but they DO say
they
> own that magazine if it prints their images.[...]
[...]But then they realized they couldn't do that to me
> because they said Disney claimed complete ownership of *anything*
published
> in a Gladstone comic (except ads),[...]
Hm, we could start to publish all Disney images like ads, puttin "on sale
next month" under every picture. That way Disney would only own their own
pictures;-)
Best,
Per-Erik
------------------------------------------------------------------
(Email removed)
------------------------------------------------------------------
> Disney would never give permission for a fanzine to use a Disney image,
> though more do than they can keep track of and stop... but they DO say
they
> own that magazine if it prints their images.[...]
[...]But then they realized they couldn't do that to me
> because they said Disney claimed complete ownership of *anything*
published
> in a Gladstone comic (except ads),[...]
Hm, we could start to publish all Disney images like ads, puttin "on sale
next month" under every picture. That way Disney would only own their own
pictures;-)
Best,
Per-Erik
------------------------------------------------------------------
(Email removed)
------------------------------------------------------------------
Fluks, H.W.
Disney (interesting subject, isn't it?)
Message 202 -
1998-05-20 at 18:34:13
Per-Erik:
> Hm, we could start to publish all Disney images like ads, puttin "on sale
> next month" under every picture. That way Disney would only own their own
> pictures;-)
That's what Gladstone has already been doing, when they published "The
Sword in the Stone" and other stories: they were actually ads for the
original artwork... 8-)
--Harry.
> Hm, we could start to publish all Disney images like ads, puttin "on sale
> next month" under every picture. That way Disney would only own their own
> pictures;-)
That's what Gladstone has already been doing, when they published "The
Sword in the Stone" and other stories: they were actually ads for the
original artwork... 8-)
--Harry.
Soeren Krarup Olesen
Fron Luca Boschi on Gorlero
Message 203 -
1998-05-20 at 19:38:48
Luca Boschi wrote:
> To Marco Barlotti, Rich Bellacera, and to all the other guys curious
> to know what happened in the "strange" Gorleto story for which he was
> "scolded".
>
> Well, I want to let you discover it personally (for people living in
> Italy who collect "Topolino", it shall not be a problem).
> You must take the issue 1202 of the pocket, come out in date "12
> marzo 1996". Then, you must go to look for the story drawn by Gorlero
> from page 151 on. Then, look for the fifth page of it.
I am sure you mean I-TL-2102-5, also to be found in
JUMBOBOG 189.
There is nothing there! Goofy is looking for a weight,
and points at two mountains - perhaps the thingy has
been erased in the Danish version?!
S=F8ren
> To Marco Barlotti, Rich Bellacera, and to all the other guys curious
> to know what happened in the "strange" Gorleto story for which he was
> "scolded".
>
> Well, I want to let you discover it personally (for people living in
> Italy who collect "Topolino", it shall not be a problem).
> You must take the issue 1202 of the pocket, come out in date "12
> marzo 1996". Then, you must go to look for the story drawn by Gorlero
> from page 151 on. Then, look for the fifth page of it.
I am sure you mean I-TL-2102-5, also to be found in
JUMBOBOG 189.
There is nothing there! Goofy is looking for a weight,
and points at two mountains - perhaps the thingy has
been erased in the Danish version?!
S=F8ren
PAULO CEZAR LOPES BARRETO,BARRETO
Murry's MM
Message 204 -
1998-05-20 at 23:19:26
Hi All!
My $1/50 on this quite delicate issue...
LUNA STORTA:
>BTW you surely have a better knowledge of Murry's works than me, so if
>you could tell me where to find his *best* stories, I'll surely try to
>get the best from them!
I've read a lot of Murry-drawn stories this far. IMHO, Murry's art is
fine but not so great (his Goofys are outstanding, though) and the
stories (not Murry-scripted, as previously stated in the ML) have
their moments as taken individually. Although, I've always thought
there was something wrong about revamping good old Mickey as that kind
of flawless champion of justice. Murry's stories never seem to work on
the key difference between a good guy and a professional crime fighter.
>And it was not only because of the story, but even from the art: the
>villains in Murry's stories can be always identified without any effort,
>not the same in Gottfredson: think about Uncle Max!
I agree, but it has its inner logic. Mickey=cute=good=lawful=cop.
Opponent=oddlooking=bad=unlawful=villain... I agree. Characterization
in the Murry-era Mickey became too reductive and that should further
explain the almost-Murry-only policy for Mickey... read on.
> WHY weren't there any other talents?
> I *DON'T* know the answer to this.
Let us think there are two Mickeys. One Mickey was one of the first
recognized stars on the silver screen, an extensively worked movie
character, and ultimately the performer of himself's role in theme
parks, T-shirts, Mickey Mouse Club etc. The other one is Murry's
Mickey. I recall the foreword to "O Grande Livro Disney" (a '70s
kiddie coffee-table activity book featuring all major characters)
explaining the way Disney characters are always connected to human
activities: U$ as the megazillionaire, Donald as the underpaid
relative (eventually DD and Fethry got full-time jobs as reporters,
but remained as exploited as ever by U$), Gyro as the inventor, Mickey
as the cop, the bad guys as nothing more and nothing less than
professional villains... When the #1 Mickey had been overworked,
they've devised the #2 Mickey so as to do something beyond just being
himself, thus keeping the Disney Universe as a setting for a stable,
solid and neverending role-playing game.
DON MARKSTEIN:
> According to my
> rough calculations, you could get at least 50 b/w 11x17 pages at
> 1200 dpi onto a CD, even without compression.
Not bad, but the usage of a non-lossy compressed format (GIF would be
fine) must be considered. By the way... are home-burned CDs actually
reliable?
[]s
P.C.Barreto
(Email removed)
My $1/50 on this quite delicate issue...
LUNA STORTA:
>BTW you surely have a better knowledge of Murry's works than me, so if
>you could tell me where to find his *best* stories, I'll surely try to
>get the best from them!
I've read a lot of Murry-drawn stories this far. IMHO, Murry's art is
fine but not so great (his Goofys are outstanding, though) and the
stories (not Murry-scripted, as previously stated in the ML) have
their moments as taken individually. Although, I've always thought
there was something wrong about revamping good old Mickey as that kind
of flawless champion of justice. Murry's stories never seem to work on
the key difference between a good guy and a professional crime fighter.
>And it was not only because of the story, but even from the art: the
>villains in Murry's stories can be always identified without any effort,
>not the same in Gottfredson: think about Uncle Max!
I agree, but it has its inner logic. Mickey=cute=good=lawful=cop.
Opponent=oddlooking=bad=unlawful=villain... I agree. Characterization
in the Murry-era Mickey became too reductive and that should further
explain the almost-Murry-only policy for Mickey... read on.
> WHY weren't there any other talents?
> I *DON'T* know the answer to this.
Let us think there are two Mickeys. One Mickey was one of the first
recognized stars on the silver screen, an extensively worked movie
character, and ultimately the performer of himself's role in theme
parks, T-shirts, Mickey Mouse Club etc. The other one is Murry's
Mickey. I recall the foreword to "O Grande Livro Disney" (a '70s
kiddie coffee-table activity book featuring all major characters)
explaining the way Disney characters are always connected to human
activities: U$ as the megazillionaire, Donald as the underpaid
relative (eventually DD and Fethry got full-time jobs as reporters,
but remained as exploited as ever by U$), Gyro as the inventor, Mickey
as the cop, the bad guys as nothing more and nothing less than
professional villains... When the #1 Mickey had been overworked,
they've devised the #2 Mickey so as to do something beyond just being
himself, thus keeping the Disney Universe as a setting for a stable,
solid and neverending role-playing game.
DON MARKSTEIN:
> According to my
> rough calculations, you could get at least 50 b/w 11x17 pages at
> 1200 dpi onto a CD, even without compression.
Not bad, but the usage of a non-lossy compressed format (GIF would be
fine) must be considered. By the way... are home-burned CDs actually
reliable?
[]s
P.C.Barreto
(Email removed)
Bhc
Disney comics Digest V98 #126
Message 205 -
1998-05-20 at 23:50:06
About coloring (Gladstone's):
Everyone who has remarked on this subject of late has hit the nail on the
head, because there are a lot of nails to hit! But if I was to pick the
Number One reason for why we do our own coloring on practically everything,
it is because it is one area in which we can apply our own particular
standards.
Our standards are based on those established by Western Publishing during
their heyday, approximately the late 1940s through the late 1950s. We have
refined and tweaked these standards, which Western itself never adhered to
all that stringently, to create, if you will, the Gladstone look. And as
anyone who has been with us for a while knows, the Gladstone look itself
has undergone many tweaks and refinements over the years.
About consistency of censorship (Disney's):
First, to be fair: censorship is not a science, and it could hardly even
qualify as alchemy. To expect rigid consistency from it is as much as to
expect absolute conformity in human nature. Release yourself from either
expectation, and you save yourself a great deal of truly unneccessary
frustration.
To the case at hand: there is a very short list of things we know never to
expect Disney to approve, but outside of those we simply send in the
stories and hope for the best. In the course of twelve years of this, we
have never been better than fair at predicting what may or may not pass
muster. (Okay, maybe it is a little like alchemy, but that's as far as I'll
go.)
About consistency of censorship (Gladstone's):
In order to publish, we live with most of the inconsistencies that result
from Disney's approval process. Once in a while the inconsistencies can
become, as we see it, extreme, and we either try to work out solutions with
Disney or we put the story aside. What steps we do take most often depend
on how we view the story's relative importance to the issue in which it is
supposed to appear and/or its significance to Disney comics as a whole.
Wow! Five days of vacation and I come back a writin' fool!
Gary
****************************
"You load that blunderbuss with cold oatmeal from now on. I might have been
in that!" - P.T. Bridgeport (paraphrase)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Gladstone on the Web: http://www.hamlco.com/bhc/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Everyone who has remarked on this subject of late has hit the nail on the
head, because there are a lot of nails to hit! But if I was to pick the
Number One reason for why we do our own coloring on practically everything,
it is because it is one area in which we can apply our own particular
standards.
Our standards are based on those established by Western Publishing during
their heyday, approximately the late 1940s through the late 1950s. We have
refined and tweaked these standards, which Western itself never adhered to
all that stringently, to create, if you will, the Gladstone look. And as
anyone who has been with us for a while knows, the Gladstone look itself
has undergone many tweaks and refinements over the years.
About consistency of censorship (Disney's):
First, to be fair: censorship is not a science, and it could hardly even
qualify as alchemy. To expect rigid consistency from it is as much as to
expect absolute conformity in human nature. Release yourself from either
expectation, and you save yourself a great deal of truly unneccessary
frustration.
To the case at hand: there is a very short list of things we know never to
expect Disney to approve, but outside of those we simply send in the
stories and hope for the best. In the course of twelve years of this, we
have never been better than fair at predicting what may or may not pass
muster. (Okay, maybe it is a little like alchemy, but that's as far as I'll
go.)
About consistency of censorship (Gladstone's):
In order to publish, we live with most of the inconsistencies that result
from Disney's approval process. Once in a while the inconsistencies can
become, as we see it, extreme, and we either try to work out solutions with
Disney or we put the story aside. What steps we do take most often depend
on how we view the story's relative importance to the issue in which it is
supposed to appear and/or its significance to Disney comics as a whole.
Wow! Five days of vacation and I come back a writin' fool!
Gary
****************************
"You load that blunderbuss with cold oatmeal from now on. I might have been
in that!" - P.T. Bridgeport (paraphrase)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Gladstone on the Web: http://www.hamlco.com/bhc/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Luca Boschi
Still on Gorlero
Message 206 -
1998-05-21 at 01:49:33
Hi, Soeren!
You have not found the "thing" yet, but you are really close to it!
>
> I am sure you mean I-TL-2102-5, also to be found in
> JUMBOBOG 189.
OK, That's it!
>
> There is nothing there! Goofy is looking for a weight,
> and points at two mountains - perhaps the thingy has
> been erased in the Danish version?!
Maybe that "something" has been erased, but maybe also that for Dane
people the "object of scolding" has no sense. Indeed, for people able
to discover all the details that Don Rosa puts into his panels, maybe
the search be easier! Look at the first panels!
Bye!
Luca
You have not found the "thing" yet, but you are really close to it!
>
> I am sure you mean I-TL-2102-5, also to be found in
> JUMBOBOG 189.
OK, That's it!
>
> There is nothing there! Goofy is looking for a weight,
> and points at two mountains - perhaps the thingy has
> been erased in the Danish version?!
Maybe that "something" has been erased, but maybe also that for Dane
people the "object of scolding" has no sense. Indeed, for people able
to discover all the details that Don Rosa puts into his panels, maybe
the search be easier! Look at the first panels!
Bye!
Luca
Mike Schneiderath
Shaun Knowler unreachable!
Message 207 -
1998-05-21 at 02:03:24
Hi Everyone!
Due to a fatal Hard Drive crash Shaun Knowler <(Email removed)>
is currently not able to download and answer e-mails directed to his adress!
If there are any *important* things coming up, you may send them to me and
I will make sure that he gets the message!
Thanks
Mike Schneiderath
-----------------------
(Email removed)
Due to a fatal Hard Drive crash Shaun Knowler <(Email removed)>
is currently not able to download and answer e-mails directed to his adress!
If there are any *important* things coming up, you may send them to me and
I will make sure that he gets the message!
Thanks
Mike Schneiderath
-----------------------
(Email removed)
Uga
Artist/Writer?
Message 208 -
1998-05-21 at 07:15:59
I am trying to find out the artist/writer of some US stories which appeared
in Australia in the late 60's. The story titles are :
The Pilfering Pelicans
The Case Of The Soccer Tickets
The Counter Trap
Money Bin Mayhem
These story are approx. 25-30 pages long and are possibly translated from
another language judging by the text in the balloons.
Thanks
in Australia in the late 60's. The story titles are :
The Pilfering Pelicans
The Case Of The Soccer Tickets
The Counter Trap
Money Bin Mayhem
These story are approx. 25-30 pages long and are possibly translated from
another language judging by the text in the balloons.
Thanks
Markoff
UNCLE SCROOGE 310
Message 209 -
1998-05-21 at 08:00:21
It's that time again...
***POSSIBLE SPOILERS***
"The Sign of the Triple Distelfink" was an interesting Rosa "gag" story. I
won't judge whether it's among my favorite Rosa stories since the fact that
one is the most recently read is always an influence. Gladstone's prominence
eclipsing that of Donald, and the new, previously unseen side of his
character added to the uniqueness of the story, and I really wonder at the
choice of "hero" in the first panel. I liked the big Duck family
get-togethers in the flashbacks but was somewhat disappointed that
Gladstone's father Goosetave didn't show up, since I've been curious to know
more about him ever since seeing his stern, thoughtful portrait on the Duck
Family Tree. (Or is that for the Gladstone 60th anniversary story? ;-) I at
first winced at Rosa's overly simple attempt to "explain away" Gladstone's
mythos (for me the question was best left unanswered, as in the first Gyro
story, which involved Gladstone's "secret"), but my fanatic Rosa chauvinism
quickly suppressed any dissention. Really, the worst thing about this
printing was Scott Rockwell's coloring, which seemed washed out and too
heavy on yellowish tints. Why has Sue Daigle-Leach been relegated to
Taliaferro gags?
I skipped over the list's comments about the censorship of this story until
after reading the story itself, and going back to read them I think the list
has pretty much said all there is to say. Most notable was the airplane gag
about the paying passenger, changed to a new reference to Gladstone's luck.
When I first read this I thought it was a good gag on Rosa's part, but
thought it slightly odd that Gladstone would be a celebrity in his own
universe. The original is so much more logical!
For the rest of US 310, I'm tempted to quote Geoffrey Blum's famous maxim
that "little in this issue jumps out at me." "The Spider Yarn" and "A Sticky
Story" were ably plotted and surely had good gags buried in there somewhere,
but the scripts seemed rushed and the art die-cast. Surely there are better
unprinted-in-the-USA Egmont stories than this. Or, better yet, why doesn't
Gladstone print the good European stories, i. e., the Italian ones? ;-)
"Back to Long Ago" was reprinted in US 279 only 5 years ago, and reprinted
in an album 4 years later. I didn't get the US issue when it came out, but
went out of my way to acquire it at a back issue sale only one year ago.
Great stuff, but I've seen it before. Even if a Barks story had to be gotten
in, there are others more deserving of priority than this. For example, I
have yet to read "The Phantom of Notre Duck" (US 60), which has not been
reprinted in the USA since a 1990 album, as well as 4 stories I know of
which have not been reprinted in any form in the USA (except the first CBL)
since the 1970s--"The Heedless Horseman" (US 66), "The Cattle King" (US 69),
"The Doom Diamond" (US 70), and "King Scrooge the First" (US 71). I'm
curious to hear Gary's comment on this one.
--Jonathan Markoff
"Oh, shut up!"
--Don Rosa, "The Sign of the Triple Distelfink"
***POSSIBLE SPOILERS***
"The Sign of the Triple Distelfink" was an interesting Rosa "gag" story. I
won't judge whether it's among my favorite Rosa stories since the fact that
one is the most recently read is always an influence. Gladstone's prominence
eclipsing that of Donald, and the new, previously unseen side of his
character added to the uniqueness of the story, and I really wonder at the
choice of "hero" in the first panel. I liked the big Duck family
get-togethers in the flashbacks but was somewhat disappointed that
Gladstone's father Goosetave didn't show up, since I've been curious to know
more about him ever since seeing his stern, thoughtful portrait on the Duck
Family Tree. (Or is that for the Gladstone 60th anniversary story? ;-) I at
first winced at Rosa's overly simple attempt to "explain away" Gladstone's
mythos (for me the question was best left unanswered, as in the first Gyro
story, which involved Gladstone's "secret"), but my fanatic Rosa chauvinism
quickly suppressed any dissention. Really, the worst thing about this
printing was Scott Rockwell's coloring, which seemed washed out and too
heavy on yellowish tints. Why has Sue Daigle-Leach been relegated to
Taliaferro gags?
I skipped over the list's comments about the censorship of this story until
after reading the story itself, and going back to read them I think the list
has pretty much said all there is to say. Most notable was the airplane gag
about the paying passenger, changed to a new reference to Gladstone's luck.
When I first read this I thought it was a good gag on Rosa's part, but
thought it slightly odd that Gladstone would be a celebrity in his own
universe. The original is so much more logical!
For the rest of US 310, I'm tempted to quote Geoffrey Blum's famous maxim
that "little in this issue jumps out at me." "The Spider Yarn" and "A Sticky
Story" were ably plotted and surely had good gags buried in there somewhere,
but the scripts seemed rushed and the art die-cast. Surely there are better
unprinted-in-the-USA Egmont stories than this. Or, better yet, why doesn't
Gladstone print the good European stories, i. e., the Italian ones? ;-)
"Back to Long Ago" was reprinted in US 279 only 5 years ago, and reprinted
in an album 4 years later. I didn't get the US issue when it came out, but
went out of my way to acquire it at a back issue sale only one year ago.
Great stuff, but I've seen it before. Even if a Barks story had to be gotten
in, there are others more deserving of priority than this. For example, I
have yet to read "The Phantom of Notre Duck" (US 60), which has not been
reprinted in the USA since a 1990 album, as well as 4 stories I know of
which have not been reprinted in any form in the USA (except the first CBL)
since the 1970s--"The Heedless Horseman" (US 66), "The Cattle King" (US 69),
"The Doom Diamond" (US 70), and "King Scrooge the First" (US 71). I'm
curious to hear Gary's comment on this one.
--Jonathan Markoff
"Oh, shut up!"
--Don Rosa, "The Sign of the Triple Distelfink"
Marco Barlotti
Somewhere in nowhere
Message 210 -
1998-05-21 at 11:51:41
On Wed, 19 Feb 1997 09:01:11 +0100, (Email removed) (Wilmer Rivers)
posted the following:
>Today I received in the mail an advertisement from the Carl Barks
>Studio. [...]
>In a separate flyer, the advertisement says that: [...]
>
> "Somewhere in Nowhere" is the latest 28 page Barks' Donald Duck
> story. Uncle Scrooge is in a supporting role, while McSwine
> returns to upset Donald's life. The story idea, by Barks, was worked
> out in travel to Orlando. Top Disney writer, John Lustig was hired
> by Grandey and Morby to put Barks gags and story together with
> dialogue. Pat Block, winner of CBG Best Inker Award 1996, will
> provide art. Barks' role is editing his and Lustig's work as well
> as art. This long adventure is due out in 1997.
Fifteen months later, what do we know of this?
Marco
htt://marcobar.cce.unifi.it/Comics
posted the following:
>Today I received in the mail an advertisement from the Carl Barks
>Studio. [...]
>In a separate flyer, the advertisement says that: [...]
>
> "Somewhere in Nowhere" is the latest 28 page Barks' Donald Duck
> story. Uncle Scrooge is in a supporting role, while McSwine
> returns to upset Donald's life. The story idea, by Barks, was worked
> out in travel to Orlando. Top Disney writer, John Lustig was hired
> by Grandey and Morby to put Barks gags and story together with
> dialogue. Pat Block, winner of CBG Best Inker Award 1996, will
> provide art. Barks' role is editing his and Lustig's work as well
> as art. This long adventure is due out in 1997.
Fifteen months later, what do we know of this?
Marco
htt://marcobar.cce.unifi.it/Comics