DEAN:
Re - reprints vs. new stories: now and forever, I'm all for new
stories.
But PREVIEWS *did* make a serious mistake with WDC&S 628 (quite
a shame, because it's through PREVIEWS that the ONLY market for these
comics finds out what's supposed to be in them!). "Officer for a Day" is
a Barks *script*, but it's Daan Jippes' new redrawn version for the
first time. It's a phenomenal job and in this new version, it's *never*
appeared in the USA.
Give Ferioli's Mickey a chance, huh?
FRANCOIS:
>I'd love to see "rare" and "exotic" stories, such as
>"Paolino Paperino e il mistero di Marte", rather than those Barks
>classics. For instance, why not publish "Donald & Donna in Trouble
>Already", if they could find it? This British story by William Ward,
>published in 1937, May 15th, may be the first Donald Adventure, and is
>nearly impossible to find. It features interesting characters such as
>Sylvester Shyster and "Donna" (from the old cartoon).
It's actually Eli Squinch, not Sylvester Shyster. Squinch = old
geezer, wild temper, unsubtle, argumentative; Shyster = middle-aged,
lawyer, slick, crafty. Funny how those two often get mixed up.
As for "Mistero il Marte," Gladstone originally intended to
follow it with a second Pedrocchi story, but Disney asked that no more
be used because, in their opinion, the art wasn't professional quality.
Regarding Nazis and cannibals:
>Is that possible that some stories are or could be censored in the US
>and not in Europe?
You're absolutely right. I've never heard of *any* Disney comic
story which hasn't been reprinted in *some* European country. Certain
countries have problems with certain stories, but even the Nazi stories
are reprinted somewhere.
(And the objection isn't that the Nazis aren't sufficiently evil
or depicted with enough scorn... it's that Nazis are shown, period.)
DANIEL:
>public. I have even heard that a boss of some company **destroyed** an
>entire series of b/w cartoons (featuring a frog?) simply because the
one
>he coincidentally saw contained stereotypical images!
The case you're thinking of is Columbia Pictures with their old
Krazy Kat cartoons. Actually, some negatives may have escaped being
destroyed, but I think the majority were. (Thanks to Mark Johnson at
King Features for this info.)
Ub Iwerks' Flip the Frog series, the one you may be thinking of,
is still preserved by the copyright holder and was safely released, in
its entirety, in a video line last year. Negatives to some cartoons were
missing, but not due to purposeful destruction, and in those cases
copies were made for the videotapes from first-generation film prints.
Great series, too, IMHO.
David Gerstein
<(Email removed)>
Author
Topic: 199805
(261 messages)
Gerstein, David DK - ECN
Disney comics Digest V98 #114
Message 31 -
1998-05-04 at 12:39:32
Per-Erik Malmström
A Beauty!!
Message 32 -
1998-05-04 at 13:45:49
Good News!!
A few Disney comics stories WERE created in Sweden in the late thirties,
and this one-pager is one of them(as long as no one finds it elsewhere;-).
The English title is "The Adventures of Morty & Ferdie".
The beauty is located at:
http://w1.185.telia.com/~u18502488/swe.gif
Hope you'll enjoy it!!
Best,
Per-Erik
------------------------------------------------------------------
(Email removed)
------------------------------------------------------------------
A few Disney comics stories WERE created in Sweden in the late thirties,
and this one-pager is one of them(as long as no one finds it elsewhere;-).
The English title is "The Adventures of Morty & Ferdie".
The beauty is located at:
http://w1.185.telia.com/~u18502488/swe.gif
Hope you'll enjoy it!!
Best,
Per-Erik
------------------------------------------------------------------
(Email removed)
------------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Van Eijmeren
Re-re-reprints
Message 33 -
1998-05-04 at 15:40:27
ARCHONTIS PANTIOS:
> Well, we are still waiting for some kind of an official response from
> Gladstone. Isn't the Americans who say that "silence leads to
> misunderstanding"?
This is also what I'm waiting for. The re-re-reprint subject is already
going on for months and so far we haven't heard anything on it from
people at Gladstone, while other subjects *were* answered.
> In all honesty, when I first wrote my posting, the word I had originally
> used was not "irritated" but "cheated". I'm uneasy at feeling like this
> for a company that had offered me such great moments in the past.
I also have mixed feelings. While it has always been fun to buy a
Gladstone publication, I now have the same idea as the person who gave the
comparision of having to buy "Best Of" compilations of ones favourite
artist because each time they have one extra bonus-track on it.
> look at what Gladstone has done with Barks stories in the last 10 years:
> [...] Haven't they squeezed every single $ out of our consumer surplus
> as far as Barks is concerned?
I have no idea, but I *do* have that feeling of Barks stories coming out
of my ears as you wrote/quoted elsewhere in your letter. Besides the big
loss in the costumer's wallet of having to buy exactly the same material
twice, this re-re-reprinting also devaluates Barks' stories to standard
filler work. On the contary, but not any better, Don Rosa's work is
divided in very small portions and used as worm on the hook to get the
puzzled and faith-losing fans into buying the comic anyway.
So, this means that the work of *two primary artists* is now somehow used
in a *wrong* way in order to fill a comic and then sell it! Of Barks we
get *too much*, while of Don Rosa we get systemetically *too little*. Or
is anyone here actually *enjoying* the 3-month diet of 8 pages a time in
order to get a Rosa-story complete?
BTW. With "too little Rosa" I of course mean his new material, because
his older material is already being re-re-reprinted too. (The Lo$ has
been republished *two* times in *exactly the same* versions since 1996!)
> They think that Barks stories in their new prestige-format comic books
> is a "new" product?!?!?!
What I wonder about is if Gladstone saw anything good in the idea of
reprinting some rare comics with the original comic-book as original.
I suggested "Donald Duck Tells About Kites" for this (of which no
original photostats seem to exist) and there were positive supporting
comments on that here.
I'm particularly very curious on what Gladstone has to say on this idea,
because such reprints would give fans exactly what they want (original
un-retouched material) while Gladstone doesn't need to re-colour and
to re-prepare the story for a print.
> In a bewildered mood,
Also a bit bewildered. Gladstone has some very devoted fans and all what's
happening now is that these fans feel more and more cheated. I really hope
this will change, because I for myself now also am doubting my enthusiasm
of wanting to have each WDC&S and U$. I'm fond of the prestige format, but
for prestige alone there are too much more *other* things in life to
long/work for.
Greetings,
--- Daniel (not hotheaded, only puzzled)
> Well, we are still waiting for some kind of an official response from
> Gladstone. Isn't the Americans who say that "silence leads to
> misunderstanding"?
This is also what I'm waiting for. The re-re-reprint subject is already
going on for months and so far we haven't heard anything on it from
people at Gladstone, while other subjects *were* answered.
> In all honesty, when I first wrote my posting, the word I had originally
> used was not "irritated" but "cheated". I'm uneasy at feeling like this
> for a company that had offered me such great moments in the past.
I also have mixed feelings. While it has always been fun to buy a
Gladstone publication, I now have the same idea as the person who gave the
comparision of having to buy "Best Of" compilations of ones favourite
artist because each time they have one extra bonus-track on it.
> look at what Gladstone has done with Barks stories in the last 10 years:
> [...] Haven't they squeezed every single $ out of our consumer surplus
> as far as Barks is concerned?
I have no idea, but I *do* have that feeling of Barks stories coming out
of my ears as you wrote/quoted elsewhere in your letter. Besides the big
loss in the costumer's wallet of having to buy exactly the same material
twice, this re-re-reprinting also devaluates Barks' stories to standard
filler work. On the contary, but not any better, Don Rosa's work is
divided in very small portions and used as worm on the hook to get the
puzzled and faith-losing fans into buying the comic anyway.
So, this means that the work of *two primary artists* is now somehow used
in a *wrong* way in order to fill a comic and then sell it! Of Barks we
get *too much*, while of Don Rosa we get systemetically *too little*. Or
is anyone here actually *enjoying* the 3-month diet of 8 pages a time in
order to get a Rosa-story complete?
BTW. With "too little Rosa" I of course mean his new material, because
his older material is already being re-re-reprinted too. (The Lo$ has
been republished *two* times in *exactly the same* versions since 1996!)
> They think that Barks stories in their new prestige-format comic books
> is a "new" product?!?!?!
What I wonder about is if Gladstone saw anything good in the idea of
reprinting some rare comics with the original comic-book as original.
I suggested "Donald Duck Tells About Kites" for this (of which no
original photostats seem to exist) and there were positive supporting
comments on that here.
I'm particularly very curious on what Gladstone has to say on this idea,
because such reprints would give fans exactly what they want (original
un-retouched material) while Gladstone doesn't need to re-colour and
to re-prepare the story for a print.
> In a bewildered mood,
Also a bit bewildered. Gladstone has some very devoted fans and all what's
happening now is that these fans feel more and more cheated. I really hope
this will change, because I for myself now also am doubting my enthusiasm
of wanting to have each WDC&S and U$. I'm fond of the prestige format, but
for prestige alone there are too much more *other* things in life to
long/work for.
Greetings,
--- Daniel (not hotheaded, only puzzled)
D Decker
Banning is a banned subject??? :-)
Message 34 -
1998-05-04 at 20:12:07
On May 2, 4:30pm, Daniel van Eijmeren wrote:
> I would want such items to be published. Not because of any racial thoughts
> behind them, but just because they fall in the category that interests me:
> Disney comics and cartoons! (Other people may want to have them because
> they have historical interest in WOII, for example.)
WOII? Wait a minute...you're probably thinking "Wereldoorlog II." In English,
it's World War II, abbreviated WWII. (I'm feeling obnoxiously helpful this
morning!)
>
> I fully agree that a publisher should be aware of young readers, but should
> this rule out an availability for collectors? Sometimes Disney seems to
> have a different policy for regular and collector publications, but so far
> this has been very unclear. Very unfortunately, because I think this is
> the policy to go for.
>
I think with the Nazi stuff, it's now 53 years after the war ended, and the
historical context is being lost or forgotten. The cartoons made then with
topical references are becoming antiques or period pieces. There may be a
perceived problem that it's now difficult to sell those cartoons as simple
entertainment (compared to a timeless cartoon about, say, Mickey, Donald, and
Goofy being forced to move out of their house and hilarious complications
ensue). The war-era stuff would require too much background knowledge of the
time and the references for children to understand. Collectors are another
matter, and there have been collections like "A Soldier and a Duck" (and over
on the Warners side of Toontown, "Bugs and Daffy: the Wartime Cartoons") that
cheerfully collected all that material for older audiences that would have some
idea what it was all about. As has been pointed out before, though, even "A
Soldier and a Duck" didn't include "Der Fuehrer's Face," which is kind of the
ultimate WWII-era cartoon, though some excerpts from it were included in the
introduction. Same sort of thing for comics, I guess. The really heavy-duty
topical references take too much explaining.
> BTW. Besides care for the children, another reason for a company to ban
> publications is of course the bad name they might get *themselves*. Disney
> may not want to know they once drew black people so stereotypical and so
> *that* may be why they don't allow it, despite any interest from the
> public.
Exactly. Public relations. We fans and collectors can sit around here and
complain about Disney capriciously "banning" this story or "censoring" that
one, and sometimes it does seem arbitrary and heavy-handed -- but can you
imagine what the public reaction would be like if Disney _didn't_ shove that
old material under the rug but kept on reprinting it unchanged?
--Dwight Decker
> I would want such items to be published. Not because of any racial thoughts
> behind them, but just because they fall in the category that interests me:
> Disney comics and cartoons! (Other people may want to have them because
> they have historical interest in WOII, for example.)
WOII? Wait a minute...you're probably thinking "Wereldoorlog II." In English,
it's World War II, abbreviated WWII. (I'm feeling obnoxiously helpful this
morning!)
>
> I fully agree that a publisher should be aware of young readers, but should
> this rule out an availability for collectors? Sometimes Disney seems to
> have a different policy for regular and collector publications, but so far
> this has been very unclear. Very unfortunately, because I think this is
> the policy to go for.
>
I think with the Nazi stuff, it's now 53 years after the war ended, and the
historical context is being lost or forgotten. The cartoons made then with
topical references are becoming antiques or period pieces. There may be a
perceived problem that it's now difficult to sell those cartoons as simple
entertainment (compared to a timeless cartoon about, say, Mickey, Donald, and
Goofy being forced to move out of their house and hilarious complications
ensue). The war-era stuff would require too much background knowledge of the
time and the references for children to understand. Collectors are another
matter, and there have been collections like "A Soldier and a Duck" (and over
on the Warners side of Toontown, "Bugs and Daffy: the Wartime Cartoons") that
cheerfully collected all that material for older audiences that would have some
idea what it was all about. As has been pointed out before, though, even "A
Soldier and a Duck" didn't include "Der Fuehrer's Face," which is kind of the
ultimate WWII-era cartoon, though some excerpts from it were included in the
introduction. Same sort of thing for comics, I guess. The really heavy-duty
topical references take too much explaining.
> BTW. Besides care for the children, another reason for a company to ban
> publications is of course the bad name they might get *themselves*. Disney
> may not want to know they once drew black people so stereotypical and so
> *that* may be why they don't allow it, despite any interest from the
> public.
Exactly. Public relations. We fans and collectors can sit around here and
complain about Disney capriciously "banning" this story or "censoring" that
one, and sometimes it does seem arbitrary and heavy-handed -- but can you
imagine what the public reaction would be like if Disney _didn't_ shove that
old material under the rug but kept on reprinting it unchanged?
--Dwight Decker
D Decker
Re-re-reprints
Message 35 -
1998-05-04 at 20:29:59
On May 4, 3:40pm, Daniel van Eijmeren wrote:
> I also have mixed feelings. While it has always been fun to buy a
> Gladstone publication, I now have the same idea as the person who gave the
> comparision of having to buy "Best Of" compilations of ones favourite
> artist because each time they have one extra bonus-track on it.
>
Boy, I know just how that goes. Last week, my local comics shop, operating on
my vague instructions to save for me "all the Gladstones," put in my box a
$9.95 album collection I either wasn't aware was coming out or didn't notice
mentioned in the coming attractions listings. The book was supposedly an "Uncle
Scrooge Bargain Book," but it isn't much of a bargain if you already have all
the stories in recently published albums already. I had to think long and hard
about whether to deplete my supply of good will at the shop by throwing the
book back at them or to take the book and console myself with the thought that
the new Don Rosa cover showing Mickey Mouse along with Donald and Scrooge might
be worth a significant fraction of $9.95. Then I noticed the contents included
a very old '30s newspaper strip story with a long-beaked Donald teaming up with
a short-pants/piecut-eyed Mickey. "Okay, it's a keeper," said I. I didn't
really need all those oft-reprinted Barks stories in the book, and a few pages
of a '30s newspaper-comic story (that I didn't think was all that good, but
sheer age and rarity score points here) along with an original Rosa cover may
not be quite worth a ten-spot (to _me_ -- your mileage may differ), but I'm not
_too_ unhappy about it.
--Dwight Decker
--------------------------------
End of Disney comics Digest V98 Issue #115
******************************************
> I also have mixed feelings. While it has always been fun to buy a
> Gladstone publication, I now have the same idea as the person who gave the
> comparision of having to buy "Best Of" compilations of ones favourite
> artist because each time they have one extra bonus-track on it.
>
Boy, I know just how that goes. Last week, my local comics shop, operating on
my vague instructions to save for me "all the Gladstones," put in my box a
$9.95 album collection I either wasn't aware was coming out or didn't notice
mentioned in the coming attractions listings. The book was supposedly an "Uncle
Scrooge Bargain Book," but it isn't much of a bargain if you already have all
the stories in recently published albums already. I had to think long and hard
about whether to deplete my supply of good will at the shop by throwing the
book back at them or to take the book and console myself with the thought that
the new Don Rosa cover showing Mickey Mouse along with Donald and Scrooge might
be worth a significant fraction of $9.95. Then I noticed the contents included
a very old '30s newspaper strip story with a long-beaked Donald teaming up with
a short-pants/piecut-eyed Mickey. "Okay, it's a keeper," said I. I didn't
really need all those oft-reprinted Barks stories in the book, and a few pages
of a '30s newspaper-comic story (that I didn't think was all that good, but
sheer age and rarity score points here) along with an original Rosa cover may
not be quite worth a ten-spot (to _me_ -- your mileage may differ), but I'm not
_too_ unhappy about it.
--Dwight Decker
--------------------------------
End of Disney comics Digest V98 Issue #115
******************************************
Francois Willot
Mickey Mouse
Message 36 -
1998-05-04 at 22:30:14
Fredrik:
>Interesting. Could this be the same strip that is published in WDC 98?
>I find it in the Grand Comic-book Database and the indexer has titled
>the strip [Jiu Jitsu in dance]. Only problem is GCD has art credited to
>Manuel Gonzales, not Gottfredson.
It's probably the same gag. The GCD credit is taken from the DcD (I
think), and "Jiu Jitsu in dance" is the 28th entry for WDC 98,
attributed to Gonzales indeed. The Gottfredson credit is by me, and
maybe I'm wrong, I'll check my Picsou issue thursday.
>The DcD code for the strip in Picsou is YM45?04. I do not understand
>what this refers to but it does not seem to be in the story database.
>Or is it?
It's not in the story files, for the code is not known precisely. This
(fake) code is by me, it means "fourth (unknown) story from the 1945 MM
dailies in the French index".
Bjoern:
>Anyway, 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, (and what about images from the more famous
>ones?) The name and writer on its own is rarely enough to identify a
>story I might have read a long time ago. Are there any plans to add
>that? (If there is, I'd be happy to contribute.)
I'm sure any contribution would be very appreciated. There's not a lot
of data about Norway, for now, but summaries could be interesting too.
David:
(About the first British Donald adventure)
> It's actually Eli Squinch, not Sylvester Shyster. Squinch = old
>geezer, wild temper, unsubtle, argumentative; Shyster = middle-aged,
>lawyer, slick, crafty. Funny how those two often get mixed up.
What is Eli Squinch's first appearance? I don't see what character he
is. Is he physically very different than S. Shyster (one of the villain
from "Death Valley")?
>Certain countries have problems with certain stories, but even the Nazi
>stories are reprinted somewhere.
> (And the objection isn't that the Nazis aren't sufficiently evil >or depicted with enough scorn... it's that Nazis are shown, period.)
You're right. And that's why such stories are *not* published here in
France.
Per-Erik:
Thanks for your scan!!
Francois
>Interesting. Could this be the same strip that is published in WDC 98?
>I find it in the Grand Comic-book Database and the indexer has titled
>the strip [Jiu Jitsu in dance]. Only problem is GCD has art credited to
>Manuel Gonzales, not Gottfredson.
It's probably the same gag. The GCD credit is taken from the DcD (I
think), and "Jiu Jitsu in dance" is the 28th entry for WDC 98,
attributed to Gonzales indeed. The Gottfredson credit is by me, and
maybe I'm wrong, I'll check my Picsou issue thursday.
>The DcD code for the strip in Picsou is YM45?04. I do not understand
>what this refers to but it does not seem to be in the story database.
>Or is it?
It's not in the story files, for the code is not known precisely. This
(fake) code is by me, it means "fourth (unknown) story from the 1945 MM
dailies in the French index".
Bjoern:
>Anyway, 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, (and what about images from the more famous
>ones?) The name and writer on its own is rarely enough to identify a
>story I might have read a long time ago. Are there any plans to add
>that? (If there is, I'd be happy to contribute.)
I'm sure any contribution would be very appreciated. There's not a lot
of data about Norway, for now, but summaries could be interesting too.
David:
(About the first British Donald adventure)
> It's actually Eli Squinch, not Sylvester Shyster. Squinch = old
>geezer, wild temper, unsubtle, argumentative; Shyster = middle-aged,
>lawyer, slick, crafty. Funny how those two often get mixed up.
What is Eli Squinch's first appearance? I don't see what character he
is. Is he physically very different than S. Shyster (one of the villain
from "Death Valley")?
>Certain countries have problems with certain stories, but even the Nazi
>stories are reprinted somewhere.
> (And the objection isn't that the Nazis aren't sufficiently evil >or depicted with enough scorn... it's that Nazis are shown, period.)
You're right. And that's why such stories are *not* published here in
France.
Per-Erik:
Thanks for your scan!!
Francois
Shaun Knowler
Disney comics Digest V98 #115
Message 37 -
1998-05-04 at 22:58:13
Well, I've got some ranting to contribute about this whole
re-re-reprinting thing...
DEAN:
> > I basically have two requests. The first is for the readers of this
> >list. I would like for as many people as possible to express on the
> >list what THEIR preferences are.
Well, in an aspect, I don't mind Gladstone doing Barks reprints. I missed
out on the B&W CBL, and the WDC&S and DDA sets too, so the occaisional
reprint of material that I missed is okay by me. It's just that most of
the material they choose to reprint is stuff coming out in the UNCLE
SCROOGE ADVENTURES albums, which I've got every issue of so far!! THAT'S
what is frusterating to me... (along with the fact that the price of the
albums went up a good @#$@ deal!) I've got several different copies of
"Back to Long Ago", "The Great Steamboat Race", and "Tralla La"... But
I've NEVER READ "Lost in the Andes" or "In Old California" or ten pagers
like the one which introduced the Beagle Boys, or the one that introduced
Scrooge's money bin! Why can't they reprint little gems like those,
instead of over-exposed Scrooge tales that everyone must already have!
DANIEL:
>
> So, this means that the work of *two primary artists* is now somehow used
> in a *wrong* way in order to fill a comic and then sell it! Of Barks we
> get *too much*, while of Don Rosa we get systemetically *too little*. Or
> is anyone here actually *enjoying* the 3-month diet of 8 pages a time in
> order to get a Rosa-story complete?
Well, on this point I will defend Gladstone a little (And I do hate
having to take 3 books with me to read "The Universal Solvent", etc).
First of all, the last serialized Rosa story we had to muddle through was
"Attack of the Hideous Space Varmints" a good part of a year ago. As Don
says himself, he works very slow, and we can't squeeze enough material
from him as we'd like to, as often as we want to. But, now that there's a
bunch of new stories slated to be printed in the US, Gladstone is printing
all of them in one issue each! Now, I know this is no biggie with stories
like "WHADALOTTAJARGON" and "Sign of the Triple Distelfink" which cannot
be serialized anyway, but U$ #311 will have "The Last Lord of Eldorado" in
ONE part, when the story does actually exist in 2 parts. For this I thank
Gladstone and wholeheartedly pat them on the back.
> BTW. With "too little Rosa" I of course mean his new material, because
> his older material is already being re-re-reprinted too. (The Lo$ has
> been republished *two* times in *exactly the same* versions since 1996!)
Well, I am a little bitter about that. I had to pay for those 4 albums
(TWICE when one set was heavily damaged!), then along came the limted HC
I was dreaming of. But all it was was the four albums without covers
binded into a hard cover (never mind the wait for the book, which some
people are STILL going through, or the miracle Don is preforming to draw
in each one of 'em!). It cost me $107.00 Canadian, while the Swedish
edition, with all covers and long texts included, costs $25. I won't even
mention the Italian or French editions.
Inside was that infamous Blum article, and all the same coloring and
lettering errors, along with that STUPID index-finger holdup in chapter 3.
> Also a bit bewildered. Gladstone has some very devoted fans and all what's
> happening now is that these fans feel more and more cheated. I really hope
> this will change, because I for myself now also am doubting my enthusiasm
> of wanting to have each WDC&S and U$.
I also agree. I once was willing to get every issue of WDC&S, or now the
new U$, but now I find myself actually having to take a copy of previews
to the comic store manager and actually showing her what NOT to order for
me...
DWIGHT:
> Boy, I know just how that goes. Last week, my local comics shop, operating on
> my vague instructions to save for me "all the Gladstones," put in my box a
> $9.95 album collection I either wasn't aware was coming out or didn't notice
> mentioned in the coming attractions listings.
You're lucky!! Apperently, according to my comic store, that book was
"Allocated"! For some reason, Gladstone didn't make enough of the darned
book to fill all the orders for it! My store ordered SIX of them and got
ONE. And it went to someone who managed to have a file there longer than
me. This really pissed me off, because I was looking forward to the Rosa
cover, and the few things in the book I actually hadn't read yet.
_______________
Okay, now with all of the above said, I must also say this; I am VERY VERY
thankful that Gladstone is around to even make ANYTHING! I would truly go
mad if Disney comics in North America disappeared, and I could no longer
admire the wonderful coloring done by Gladstone, or appreciate Don Rosa's
original scripts and read his stories as they're meant to be (censorship
aside), or be able to have all of Carl Barks' Uncle Scrooge tales printed
in very high quality books.
End Rant,
-Shaun
re-re-reprinting thing...
DEAN:
> > I basically have two requests. The first is for the readers of this
> >list. I would like for as many people as possible to express on the
> >list what THEIR preferences are.
Well, in an aspect, I don't mind Gladstone doing Barks reprints. I missed
out on the B&W CBL, and the WDC&S and DDA sets too, so the occaisional
reprint of material that I missed is okay by me. It's just that most of
the material they choose to reprint is stuff coming out in the UNCLE
SCROOGE ADVENTURES albums, which I've got every issue of so far!! THAT'S
what is frusterating to me... (along with the fact that the price of the
albums went up a good @#$@ deal!) I've got several different copies of
"Back to Long Ago", "The Great Steamboat Race", and "Tralla La"... But
I've NEVER READ "Lost in the Andes" or "In Old California" or ten pagers
like the one which introduced the Beagle Boys, or the one that introduced
Scrooge's money bin! Why can't they reprint little gems like those,
instead of over-exposed Scrooge tales that everyone must already have!
DANIEL:
>
> So, this means that the work of *two primary artists* is now somehow used
> in a *wrong* way in order to fill a comic and then sell it! Of Barks we
> get *too much*, while of Don Rosa we get systemetically *too little*. Or
> is anyone here actually *enjoying* the 3-month diet of 8 pages a time in
> order to get a Rosa-story complete?
Well, on this point I will defend Gladstone a little (And I do hate
having to take 3 books with me to read "The Universal Solvent", etc).
First of all, the last serialized Rosa story we had to muddle through was
"Attack of the Hideous Space Varmints" a good part of a year ago. As Don
says himself, he works very slow, and we can't squeeze enough material
from him as we'd like to, as often as we want to. But, now that there's a
bunch of new stories slated to be printed in the US, Gladstone is printing
all of them in one issue each! Now, I know this is no biggie with stories
like "WHADALOTTAJARGON" and "Sign of the Triple Distelfink" which cannot
be serialized anyway, but U$ #311 will have "The Last Lord of Eldorado" in
ONE part, when the story does actually exist in 2 parts. For this I thank
Gladstone and wholeheartedly pat them on the back.
> BTW. With "too little Rosa" I of course mean his new material, because
> his older material is already being re-re-reprinted too. (The Lo$ has
> been republished *two* times in *exactly the same* versions since 1996!)
Well, I am a little bitter about that. I had to pay for those 4 albums
(TWICE when one set was heavily damaged!), then along came the limted HC
I was dreaming of. But all it was was the four albums without covers
binded into a hard cover (never mind the wait for the book, which some
people are STILL going through, or the miracle Don is preforming to draw
in each one of 'em!). It cost me $107.00 Canadian, while the Swedish
edition, with all covers and long texts included, costs $25. I won't even
mention the Italian or French editions.
Inside was that infamous Blum article, and all the same coloring and
lettering errors, along with that STUPID index-finger holdup in chapter 3.
> Also a bit bewildered. Gladstone has some very devoted fans and all what's
> happening now is that these fans feel more and more cheated. I really hope
> this will change, because I for myself now also am doubting my enthusiasm
> of wanting to have each WDC&S and U$.
I also agree. I once was willing to get every issue of WDC&S, or now the
new U$, but now I find myself actually having to take a copy of previews
to the comic store manager and actually showing her what NOT to order for
me...
DWIGHT:
> Boy, I know just how that goes. Last week, my local comics shop, operating on
> my vague instructions to save for me "all the Gladstones," put in my box a
> $9.95 album collection I either wasn't aware was coming out or didn't notice
> mentioned in the coming attractions listings.
You're lucky!! Apperently, according to my comic store, that book was
"Allocated"! For some reason, Gladstone didn't make enough of the darned
book to fill all the orders for it! My store ordered SIX of them and got
ONE. And it went to someone who managed to have a file there longer than
me. This really pissed me off, because I was looking forward to the Rosa
cover, and the few things in the book I actually hadn't read yet.
_______________
Okay, now with all of the above said, I must also say this; I am VERY VERY
thankful that Gladstone is around to even make ANYTHING! I would truly go
mad if Disney comics in North America disappeared, and I could no longer
admire the wonderful coloring done by Gladstone, or appreciate Don Rosa's
original scripts and read his stories as they're meant to be (censorship
aside), or be able to have all of Carl Barks' Uncle Scrooge tales printed
in very high quality books.
End Rant,
-Shaun
PAULO CEZAR LOPES BARRETO,BARRETO
DD's Marriage
Message 38 -
1998-05-04 at 23:23:26
Francois, Rich & all:
>>The act was completed enough, and D+D got SIX children (three males
>>and three females) with Daisy's FIRST pregnancy...
>>There is of course a final surprise which all of you can imagine!
>>Anyway, the story is nice enough and well-drawn (with an excellent
>>drawing of the Notre-Duck cathedral)
The "DD's marriage" was originally released in 1987 under a big
brouhaha, but I think it's not such a great story. The story was
recently (last monty) reprinted in Brazil and at last I could read it.
There is a good, although somewhat motley, sequence of gags (multiple
writers?) around a flimsy, obvious plot, the length of the sections is
uneven and the art lacks minimum continuity (at least two artists,
each with his/her/its own style, worked on it).
Anyway, the story is 100% The-Great-Disney-Comics-Code-compliant (e.g.
D&D are never seen in the same bed, the priest is not visible, Daisy
delivers children with no hints about the actual Duck Family way of
multiplication -- at least they don't tell us when/how/if she lays the eggs).
Trivia: the old-age Donald seems to have given up wearing his wedding
ring (Daisy's ring is not visible). Maybe they have de facto divorced
in the meantime?
[]s
P.C.Barreto
(Email removed)
>>The act was completed enough, and D+D got SIX children (three males
>>and three females) with Daisy's FIRST pregnancy...
>>There is of course a final surprise which all of you can imagine!
>>Anyway, the story is nice enough and well-drawn (with an excellent
>>drawing of the Notre-Duck cathedral)
The "DD's marriage" was originally released in 1987 under a big
brouhaha, but I think it's not such a great story. The story was
recently (last monty) reprinted in Brazil and at last I could read it.
There is a good, although somewhat motley, sequence of gags (multiple
writers?) around a flimsy, obvious plot, the length of the sections is
uneven and the art lacks minimum continuity (at least two artists,
each with his/her/its own style, worked on it).
Anyway, the story is 100% The-Great-Disney-Comics-Code-compliant (e.g.
D&D are never seen in the same bed, the priest is not visible, Daisy
delivers children with no hints about the actual Duck Family way of
multiplication -- at least they don't tell us when/how/if she lays the eggs).
Trivia: the old-age Donald seems to have given up wearing his wedding
ring (Daisy's ring is not visible). Maybe they have de facto divorced
in the meantime?
[]s
P.C.Barreto
(Email removed)
D Decker
Slight Correction
Message 39 -
1998-05-05 at 00:13:46
In a previous posting, I referred to a Disney video collection called "A
Soldier and a Duck." What was I thinking!? It's actually called "An Officer and
a Duck," a takeoff on the movie "An Officer and a Gentleman." Oops! Sorry about
that! I guess I misremembered...
--Dwight Decker
Soldier and a Duck." What was I thinking!? It's actually called "An Officer and
a Duck," a takeoff on the movie "An Officer and a Gentleman." Oops! Sorry about
that! I guess I misremembered...
--Dwight Decker
Mike Schneiderath
Rosa's El Dorado story in german Micky Maus #22
Message 40 -
1998-05-05 at 00:16:05
Hi!
The current German MCDonald=B4s news magazine had a few information about th=
e
upcoming weekly Micky Maus releases!
SO will Rosa=B4s "Last Lords of Eldorado" be published in Micky Maus #22 (4
weeks from now).=20
Also announced was "The world=B4s smallest Disney comic, coming along with a
magnifying glass" for an issue before that.
Bye!
Mike
The current German MCDonald=B4s news magazine had a few information about th=
e
upcoming weekly Micky Maus releases!
SO will Rosa=B4s "Last Lords of Eldorado" be published in Micky Maus #22 (4
weeks from now).=20
Also announced was "The world=B4s smallest Disney comic, coming along with a
magnifying glass" for an issue before that.
Bye!
Mike
TKlein28
Disney comics Digest V98 #114
Message 41 -
1998-05-05 at 02:25:57
DON R.:
It must be very upsetting to see a continuity mistake like "granddaughter"
instead of "niece" see print, but I can't agree with you on putting blame on
the letterer for not catching it. Even though I read this digest and am
familiar with the duck family, I might not have noticed the mistake, and if I
did, I would call either the writer or the editor before making that sort of
change. The only changes I make to scripts are spelling and grammar errors.
Otherwise, it's my job to put down exactly what's in the script as accurately
as possible. And though I can letter while talking to someone on the phone (or
listening to the radio or TV), the words in the script are still "read",
though perhaps with not the same attention as when reading a book for
pleasure. Sentence structure and basic meaning are taken in, if perhaps not
the larger context. Otherwise, I would have to copy one letter at a time,
which would be a very slow process. How can I do this and carry on a
conversation? I'm not sure. Practice, I guess. Kind of like multitasking on a
computer.
Todd
It must be very upsetting to see a continuity mistake like "granddaughter"
instead of "niece" see print, but I can't agree with you on putting blame on
the letterer for not catching it. Even though I read this digest and am
familiar with the duck family, I might not have noticed the mistake, and if I
did, I would call either the writer or the editor before making that sort of
change. The only changes I make to scripts are spelling and grammar errors.
Otherwise, it's my job to put down exactly what's in the script as accurately
as possible. And though I can letter while talking to someone on the phone (or
listening to the radio or TV), the words in the script are still "read",
though perhaps with not the same attention as when reading a book for
pleasure. Sentence structure and basic meaning are taken in, if perhaps not
the larger context. Otherwise, I would have to copy one letter at a time,
which would be a very slow process. How can I do this and carry on a
conversation? I'm not sure. Practice, I guess. Kind of like multitasking on a
computer.
Todd
Katie Sullivan
Disney comics Digest V98 #115
Message 42 -
1998-05-05 at 03:13:03
Hello, everyone. Glad to see the list so busy. If I haven't said it already, welcome to
the couple of new members. :-)
Re: the re-re-re-re-reprinting at Gladstone debate...
I certainly wouldn't object to Barks stories that haven't seen print in the U.S. in a
couple decades. Or even a recently reprinted story that has been restored in some way
(missing panels restored, etc.) But I agree that so many of his works have been
over-exposed lately. Give us some new stuff! Since I got on this list, my eyes have been
opened to a whole new world (quite literately) of Disney comics. I give a million thanks
to those who have helped me get my hands on actual European comics. But as my knowledge
of Italian, Dutch and German is limited (*grin*) I can do little more than enjoy the
pictures. I would love to see some "new" European stories appear in America. Bring them
on! (And more Rosa, of course! ;-)
Re: the ongoing "Scrooge's grandaughter" debate:
the couple of new members. :-)
Re: the re-re-re-re-reprinting at Gladstone debate...
I certainly wouldn't object to Barks stories that haven't seen print in the U.S. in a
couple decades. Or even a recently reprinted story that has been restored in some way
(missing panels restored, etc.) But I agree that so many of his works have been
over-exposed lately. Give us some new stuff! Since I got on this list, my eyes have been
opened to a whole new world (quite literately) of Disney comics. I give a million thanks
to those who have helped me get my hands on actual European comics. But as my knowledge
of Italian, Dutch and German is limited (*grin*) I can do little more than enjoy the
pictures. I would love to see some "new" European stories appear in America. Bring them
on! (And more Rosa, of course! ;-)
Re: the ongoing "Scrooge's grandaughter" debate:
Katie Sullivan
That Daisy picture
Message 43 -
1998-05-05 at 03:24:13
Okay, I uploaded that picture of Daisy after a makeover. All I really
did was give the poor thing a skirt and get rid of that silly bow.
Colored version coming eventually.
Enjoy!
http://www.execpc.com/~sulliva1/Duckburg/newdaisy.jpg
Katie Quackfaster :-)
did was give the poor thing a skirt and get rid of that silly bow.
Colored version coming eventually.
Enjoy!
http://www.execpc.com/~sulliva1/Duckburg/newdaisy.jpg
Katie Quackfaster :-)
Don Rosa
Disney comics Digest V98 #115
Message 44 -
1998-05-05 at 08:20:36
>From: Kriton Kyrimis
> On the other hand, since the above statement
>neither confirms nor denies it, I can't help wondering if "the final
>arbiters of Disney comics continuity", whoever they might be, weren't
>trying to push Don into broadening his cast of characters with some of
>those invented in Italy.
No, I'm not sure why the letterer is *not* the "final arbiter" because no
secret-masters-of-continuity are inspecting these scripts before they are
published. I mean, yes, Disney scrutinizes everything poor Gladstone does,
but not for continuity. No one at Disney would know if $crooge McDuck has a
granddaughter or a son or a wife or anything.
>From: Per-Erik Malmstrom
>You once wrote the following about "War of the Wendigo":
>"Therefore, simply because I feel very anxious for THIS PARTICULAR story to
>see print in English, due to the loads of extra work i put into the
>Peeweegah's Longfellowian dialogue, I offered to REDRAW all the Peeweegahs
>(except the Chief). I'm not sure how to make them all different... or how
>to explain to readers why the Peewegahs don't look like they're supposed
>to... but we'll make that offer, and if that was the problem, we'll get
>that story into America, if in a censored form. Censored is better than
>nothing?"
>
>What happened to that project? Why was it never carried through?
No. My idea was to simply redraw each Indian *slightly*... so they wouldn't
be carbon copies of each other. But Disney demanded that all Indian-type
paraphenalia be removed (teepees, feathers, bow & arrows, etc.) and that the
Peeweegah be all colored blue to make them look like Smurfs or something.
This obviously I wouldn't do!!! I'd rather *never* see that story printed in
America than bow to such idiotic political-correctness. Of course, Gladstone
doesn't need my permission to do something like this to one of my stories,
but they are just as unwilling to ruin a story for such stupid reasons.
>And-- when I read the Chat 'n' Mouse in MM 247(a great issue BTW!) I found
>something interesting.
>Sam Whiteside, Jr. wrote:
>"Do you think you could persuade Don Rosa to do a Mouse story?"
> ...and Byron answered:
>"Oddly enough, just the other day we were discussing the possiblity of Rosa
>doing a Mickey and Donald story. Perhaps in the not too distant future?"
>What made you change your mind?
Nothing. If Byron was discussing that idea with someone, it wasn't with me.
Actually I did write a story with Mickey and Donald in it once back in 1988
or so. It was at Disney's request of Gladstone that they help promote the
then-about-to-open Disney-MGM Studio theme-park, and they wanted both Mickey
and Donald to appear in the story... the way they'd have Dell do the same
thing decades ago to promote the then-new Disneyland. I didn't like the idea
but agreed to do it to help Bruce Hamilton please the Disney people. But the
only way I could tolerate such an idea is to have Donald visiting the Park
to see the famous movie-star Mickey Mouse... treating it as if Donald was in
the real world as a "normal guy", and Mickey Mouse was the star of comic
books and films, but he was an actual being... and that Donald didn't know
him personally but wanted his autograph. This is a weird notion, and also
violates my time-frame of my stories taking place in the 50s, but it's the
only way I could let myself do it. And I thought I did a funny story, but
when Hamilton showed it to Disney, Disney rejected it, so I'm told, saying
it was "too commercial". (Yes, of course commerciality was their purpose
behind wanting it done... don't try to figure these people out!) Anyway, I
lost a few weeks of work, but I'm glad they rejected it. But... the entire
story still exists in storyboard-script form... something that you'll surely
see printed someday, at least in some fanzine or somesuch.
>From: (Email removed) (D Decker)
> I had to think long and hard
>about whether to deplete my supply of good will at the shop by throwing the
>book back at them or to take the book and console myself with the thought
that
>the new Don Rosa cover showing Mickey Mouse along with Donald and Scrooge
might
>be worth a significant fraction of $9.95.....and a few pages
>of a '30s newspaper-comic story (that I didn't think was all that good, but
>sheer age and rarity score points here) along with an original Rosa cover
may
>not be quite worth a ten-spot (to _me_
I'm surprised you didn't know this -- that was not a new cover. I did that
cover 10 years ago for the last thing Gladstone printed during its first
license-period, before Disney revoked it. That cover, and a few others with
Donald & Mickey, appeared on their line of 7 "WALT DISNEY'S COMICS IN COLOR"
albums.
> On the other hand, since the above statement
>neither confirms nor denies it, I can't help wondering if "the final
>arbiters of Disney comics continuity", whoever they might be, weren't
>trying to push Don into broadening his cast of characters with some of
>those invented in Italy.
No, I'm not sure why the letterer is *not* the "final arbiter" because no
secret-masters-of-continuity are inspecting these scripts before they are
published. I mean, yes, Disney scrutinizes everything poor Gladstone does,
but not for continuity. No one at Disney would know if $crooge McDuck has a
granddaughter or a son or a wife or anything.
>From: Per-Erik Malmstrom
>You once wrote the following about "War of the Wendigo":
>"Therefore, simply because I feel very anxious for THIS PARTICULAR story to
>see print in English, due to the loads of extra work i put into the
>Peeweegah's Longfellowian dialogue, I offered to REDRAW all the Peeweegahs
>(except the Chief). I'm not sure how to make them all different... or how
>to explain to readers why the Peewegahs don't look like they're supposed
>to... but we'll make that offer, and if that was the problem, we'll get
>that story into America, if in a censored form. Censored is better than
>nothing?"
>
>What happened to that project? Why was it never carried through?
No. My idea was to simply redraw each Indian *slightly*... so they wouldn't
be carbon copies of each other. But Disney demanded that all Indian-type
paraphenalia be removed (teepees, feathers, bow & arrows, etc.) and that the
Peeweegah be all colored blue to make them look like Smurfs or something.
This obviously I wouldn't do!!! I'd rather *never* see that story printed in
America than bow to such idiotic political-correctness. Of course, Gladstone
doesn't need my permission to do something like this to one of my stories,
but they are just as unwilling to ruin a story for such stupid reasons.
>And-- when I read the Chat 'n' Mouse in MM 247(a great issue BTW!) I found
>something interesting.
>Sam Whiteside, Jr. wrote:
>"Do you think you could persuade Don Rosa to do a Mouse story?"
> ...and Byron answered:
>"Oddly enough, just the other day we were discussing the possiblity of Rosa
>doing a Mickey and Donald story. Perhaps in the not too distant future?"
>What made you change your mind?
Nothing. If Byron was discussing that idea with someone, it wasn't with me.
Actually I did write a story with Mickey and Donald in it once back in 1988
or so. It was at Disney's request of Gladstone that they help promote the
then-about-to-open Disney-MGM Studio theme-park, and they wanted both Mickey
and Donald to appear in the story... the way they'd have Dell do the same
thing decades ago to promote the then-new Disneyland. I didn't like the idea
but agreed to do it to help Bruce Hamilton please the Disney people. But the
only way I could tolerate such an idea is to have Donald visiting the Park
to see the famous movie-star Mickey Mouse... treating it as if Donald was in
the real world as a "normal guy", and Mickey Mouse was the star of comic
books and films, but he was an actual being... and that Donald didn't know
him personally but wanted his autograph. This is a weird notion, and also
violates my time-frame of my stories taking place in the 50s, but it's the
only way I could let myself do it. And I thought I did a funny story, but
when Hamilton showed it to Disney, Disney rejected it, so I'm told, saying
it was "too commercial". (Yes, of course commerciality was their purpose
behind wanting it done... don't try to figure these people out!) Anyway, I
lost a few weeks of work, but I'm glad they rejected it. But... the entire
story still exists in storyboard-script form... something that you'll surely
see printed someday, at least in some fanzine or somesuch.
>From: (Email removed) (D Decker)
> I had to think long and hard
>about whether to deplete my supply of good will at the shop by throwing the
>book back at them or to take the book and console myself with the thought
that
>the new Don Rosa cover showing Mickey Mouse along with Donald and Scrooge
might
>be worth a significant fraction of $9.95.....and a few pages
>of a '30s newspaper-comic story (that I didn't think was all that good, but
>sheer age and rarity score points here) along with an original Rosa cover
may
>not be quite worth a ten-spot (to _me_
I'm surprised you didn't know this -- that was not a new cover. I did that
cover 10 years ago for the last thing Gladstone printed during its first
license-period, before Disney revoked it. That cover, and a few others with
Donald & Mickey, appeared on their line of 7 "WALT DISNEY'S COMICS IN COLOR"
albums.
Timo Ronkainen
Finnish Disney-comics fanzine published
Message 45 -
1998-05-05 at 13:20:27
Hi there!
Is there any Finnish members in this mailing list? I'd like to get in
touch with you!
New Finnish Disney-comics fanzine is out now! 32 page A5-format. All
Finnish-language. Subjects: Romano Scarpa, Disney-fandom, reviews, etc.
For non-Finnish readers short English summary will be included if
necessary. Can be swapped to similary zines.
For further information contact:
(Email removed)
Timo Ronkainen
Junailijank. 8 as 3
80200 Joensuu
Finland
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
Is there any Finnish members in this mailing list? I'd like to get in
touch with you!
New Finnish Disney-comics fanzine is out now! 32 page A5-format. All
Finnish-language. Subjects: Romano Scarpa, Disney-fandom, reviews, etc.
For non-Finnish readers short English summary will be included if
necessary. Can be swapped to similary zines.
For further information contact:
(Email removed)
Timo Ronkainen
Junailijank. 8 as 3
80200 Joensuu
Finland
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com