Hi,
This is my first time posting a message on this mailing list, so I hope
this works. I am trying to aquire the Carl Barks lithograph, Always Another
Rainbow, and I was wondering where I might purchase one, I know that Another
Rainbow sells them, but does any other place? AR seems a little steep in
their prices, could I get it for less? Also, if anybody out there has one
that they would like to sell, please let me know.
Thanks!
Caleb King
(Email removed)
Pages:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
Author
Topic: 199808
(536 messages)
Robert King
Where to find a Lithograph?
Message 526 -
1998-08-31 at 00:25:30
Daniel Van Eijmeren
Reply to Don and Vidar
Message 527 -
1998-08-31 at 01:33:43
DON ROSA to me:
>> [Magic Hourglass] No, I don't agree on the "fictional fiction" you
>> [Jonathan] mention. For me, either *all* Barks-stories really happened
>> or *none* of them happened at all.
> You seem to ignore the fact that Barks' stories in a few instances
> (not many, but over the 5-year-development and 15 year use of $crooge,
> there were several) contradicted themselves such that it's not possible
> to regard *all* Barks' stories as really happening.
With "really happened" I was not thinking about a timeline or timeframe.
I meant that I find it strange to hear someone call certain Barks-stories
'non-existant', just like something similar has happened to Ludwig Von
Drake who now also doesn't seem to exist.
> I never changed a fact in Barks' $crooge-history unless I had no
> choice. Even when it was merely difficult to make sense of certain
> facts, I would force them into logistics and found ways to *make* it
> make sense in the "Lo$".
And you did a great job on that!
> I choose to have my own private fun and place Barks and my stories into
> a general continuity, but I am still forced to ignore about a
> half-dozen of his 500 stories for that to be possible.
That's perfectly okay, of course. I was not pointing at you or at the
"Life of $crooge" itself. My ideas on Scrooge's superstition were just my
thoughts on how the story *still* could fit in with the Life of Scrooge
series, because I have always wondered about any compatibilty problems
between the story and your series. In my imagination, at least, they
perfectly fit together the way they are. Another such story is the "Penny
Wise" one, I also think there could be a way to fit it in. I'm not saying
that you should or anything like that, it's just my imagination on them.
> But to claim to regard 100% of Barks stories as being 100% continuity-
> feasible is not possible. Therefore, since there are definitely self-
> contradictory facts within Barks' 500 stories so that accepting 100%
> of them is paradoxical, but that you insist that one can only accept
> either 0% or 100% of his stories as being part of his own "Universe",
> you're therefore saying that you accept 0% of his stories. Do you
> *really* want to say that?
Again, I was not talking from a timeline or timeframe point of view.
*I* personally have more problems with stories like "Land Beneath the
Ground" and "Interplanetary Postman". The first because I wasn't so fond
of the idea of a hollow cave under the earth and little people rolling
around in it. The second because I think the story simply puts it too
far, despite the interesting idea of Scrooge the complainer becoming a
postman himself. But even though these stories don't fit in my personal
view of the Barks universe (or at least not as well as others), I won't
put them aside as not really happening - I just don't like them as much
as the rest and that's all.
When writing a lifestory using all Barks' stories, it of course becomes
a very different matter and then descisions have to be made. Okay, the
hourglass and Penny Wise are not used in the Life of Scrooge (big deal),
they can be ignored like any other story a writer or reader wishes.
What I wrote about is that some people now call some stories non-existant
or "fictional fiction" *because* of the omission in the "Life of $crooge".
I don't agree with that, but that's of course all IMO.
> But... sometime I think you're trolling. In your own previous message
> you wrote:
>> But nescessarily *believing* in it as blindly the one and only sacred
>> truth... no. Having seen Monty Python's "Life of Brian" years ago
>> (which could be a view on fandom as much as religion), made me clear
>> how annoying that would be - most likely not in the least to the maker
>> himself.
> And then you next say that 100% of everything Barks ever wrote about
> $crooge *must* be accepted literally. Maybe you're pulling our
> collective leg here, and I'm too dense to catch the joke?
Neither of them, because that was not what I said. Maybe this could be a
summary of both letters: All stories are 'equal' to me, while they
(as a whole or individually) don't need to be taken as the one and only
'sacred way' of how the duck universe should be looked at.
I used the film "Life of Brian" as an example of how impossible it can be
for a person when suddenly everyone absorbs every word he says, taking it
as the one and only truth.
VIDAR SVENDSEN to me:
>> I think that even *with* magic hourglass, Scrooge would have gotten
>> the bad news about the big losses. Only, instead of blaming it on the
>> hourglass, he would have put the losses straight with his experience
>> and his strong personality.
> But the other ducks find a lake of diamonds while they have the
> hourglass... Maybe magic hourglasses really exists in the Duck
> universe? *Magic* certainly does? (every time I read a Barks story)
In one Barks-story (US 40), the ducks are even changed into animals by
Magica. So, magic must indeed exist in Barks' stories. The idea of
finding diamonds in the desert instead of water was later reused in a
short Scrooge story, without any magic hourglasses. So, at least you
don't *need* them to find treasures. :-)
Of course, it's a very odd coincidence that the ducks find lakes of
diamonds with the hourglass in their possesion, but there have been
stranger things in Barks' stories. (Fabulous philosopher stones,
golden rivers, planets immediately growing out of a bit of mud, etc.)
So, IMO the diamond-lake may indeed be found because of the hourglass,
while it still is *not* the catalyzer or root of Scrooge's fortune.
I think he was somehow led to believe that, undermining his self-
confidence as soon as he heard the bad news while remembering giving
away the hourglass.
Greetings,
--- Daniel
>> [Magic Hourglass] No, I don't agree on the "fictional fiction" you
>> [Jonathan] mention. For me, either *all* Barks-stories really happened
>> or *none* of them happened at all.
> You seem to ignore the fact that Barks' stories in a few instances
> (not many, but over the 5-year-development and 15 year use of $crooge,
> there were several) contradicted themselves such that it's not possible
> to regard *all* Barks' stories as really happening.
With "really happened" I was not thinking about a timeline or timeframe.
I meant that I find it strange to hear someone call certain Barks-stories
'non-existant', just like something similar has happened to Ludwig Von
Drake who now also doesn't seem to exist.
> I never changed a fact in Barks' $crooge-history unless I had no
> choice. Even when it was merely difficult to make sense of certain
> facts, I would force them into logistics and found ways to *make* it
> make sense in the "Lo$".
And you did a great job on that!
> I choose to have my own private fun and place Barks and my stories into
> a general continuity, but I am still forced to ignore about a
> half-dozen of his 500 stories for that to be possible.
That's perfectly okay, of course. I was not pointing at you or at the
"Life of $crooge" itself. My ideas on Scrooge's superstition were just my
thoughts on how the story *still* could fit in with the Life of Scrooge
series, because I have always wondered about any compatibilty problems
between the story and your series. In my imagination, at least, they
perfectly fit together the way they are. Another such story is the "Penny
Wise" one, I also think there could be a way to fit it in. I'm not saying
that you should or anything like that, it's just my imagination on them.
> But to claim to regard 100% of Barks stories as being 100% continuity-
> feasible is not possible. Therefore, since there are definitely self-
> contradictory facts within Barks' 500 stories so that accepting 100%
> of them is paradoxical, but that you insist that one can only accept
> either 0% or 100% of his stories as being part of his own "Universe",
> you're therefore saying that you accept 0% of his stories. Do you
> *really* want to say that?
Again, I was not talking from a timeline or timeframe point of view.
*I* personally have more problems with stories like "Land Beneath the
Ground" and "Interplanetary Postman". The first because I wasn't so fond
of the idea of a hollow cave under the earth and little people rolling
around in it. The second because I think the story simply puts it too
far, despite the interesting idea of Scrooge the complainer becoming a
postman himself. But even though these stories don't fit in my personal
view of the Barks universe (or at least not as well as others), I won't
put them aside as not really happening - I just don't like them as much
as the rest and that's all.
When writing a lifestory using all Barks' stories, it of course becomes
a very different matter and then descisions have to be made. Okay, the
hourglass and Penny Wise are not used in the Life of Scrooge (big deal),
they can be ignored like any other story a writer or reader wishes.
What I wrote about is that some people now call some stories non-existant
or "fictional fiction" *because* of the omission in the "Life of $crooge".
I don't agree with that, but that's of course all IMO.
> But... sometime I think you're trolling. In your own previous message
> you wrote:
>> But nescessarily *believing* in it as blindly the one and only sacred
>> truth... no. Having seen Monty Python's "Life of Brian" years ago
>> (which could be a view on fandom as much as religion), made me clear
>> how annoying that would be - most likely not in the least to the maker
>> himself.
> And then you next say that 100% of everything Barks ever wrote about
> $crooge *must* be accepted literally. Maybe you're pulling our
> collective leg here, and I'm too dense to catch the joke?
Neither of them, because that was not what I said. Maybe this could be a
summary of both letters: All stories are 'equal' to me, while they
(as a whole or individually) don't need to be taken as the one and only
'sacred way' of how the duck universe should be looked at.
I used the film "Life of Brian" as an example of how impossible it can be
for a person when suddenly everyone absorbs every word he says, taking it
as the one and only truth.
VIDAR SVENDSEN to me:
>> I think that even *with* magic hourglass, Scrooge would have gotten
>> the bad news about the big losses. Only, instead of blaming it on the
>> hourglass, he would have put the losses straight with his experience
>> and his strong personality.
> But the other ducks find a lake of diamonds while they have the
> hourglass... Maybe magic hourglasses really exists in the Duck
> universe? *Magic* certainly does? (every time I read a Barks story)
In one Barks-story (US 40), the ducks are even changed into animals by
Magica. So, magic must indeed exist in Barks' stories. The idea of
finding diamonds in the desert instead of water was later reused in a
short Scrooge story, without any magic hourglasses. So, at least you
don't *need* them to find treasures. :-)
Of course, it's a very odd coincidence that the ducks find lakes of
diamonds with the hourglass in their possesion, but there have been
stranger things in Barks' stories. (Fabulous philosopher stones,
golden rivers, planets immediately growing out of a bit of mud, etc.)
So, IMO the diamond-lake may indeed be found because of the hourglass,
while it still is *not* the catalyzer or root of Scrooge's fortune.
I think he was somehow led to believe that, undermining his self-
confidence as soon as he heard the bad news while remembering giving
away the hourglass.
Greetings,
--- Daniel
Daniel Van Eijmeren
Reply to Don and Vidar
Message 528 -
1998-08-31 at 01:43:19
DON ROSA to me:
>> [Magic Hourglass] No, I don't agree on the "fictional fiction" you
>> [Jonathan] mention. For me, either *all* Barks-stories really happened
>> or *none* of them happened at all.
> You seem to ignore the fact that Barks' stories in a few instances
> (not many, but over the 5-year-development and 15 year use of $crooge,
> there were several) contradicted themselves such that it's not possible
> to regard *all* Barks' stories as really happening.
With "really happened" I was not thinking about a timeline or timeframe.
I meant that I find it strange to hear someone call certain Barks-stories
'non-existant', just like something similar has happened to Ludwig Von
Drake who now also doesn't seem to exist.
> I never changed a fact in Barks' $crooge-history unless I had no
> choice. Even when it was merely difficult to make sense of certain
> facts, I would force them into logistics and found ways to *make* it
> make sense in the "Lo$".
And you did a great job on that!
> I choose to have my own private fun and place Barks and my stories into
> a general continuity, but I am still forced to ignore about a
> half-dozen of his 500 stories for that to be possible.
That's perfectly okay, of course. I was not pointing at you or at the
"Life of $crooge" itself. My ideas on Scrooge's superstition were just my
thoughts on how the story *still* could fit in with the Life of Scrooge
series, because I have always wondered about any compatibilty problems
between the story and your series. In my imagination, at least, they
perfectly fit together the way they are. Another such story is the "Penny
Wise" one, I also think there could be a way to fit it in. I'm not saying
that you should or anything like that, it's just my imagination on them.
> But to claim to regard 100% of Barks stories as being 100% continuity-
> feasible is not possible. Therefore, since there are definitely self-
> contradictory facts within Barks' 500 stories so that accepting 100%
> of them is paradoxical, but that you insist that one can only accept
> either 0% or 100% of his stories as being part of his own "Universe",
> you're therefore saying that you accept 0% of his stories. Do you
> *really* want to say that?
Again, I was not talking from a timeline or timeframe point of view.
*I* personally have more problems with stories like "Land Beneath the
Ground" and "Interplanetary Postman". The first because I wasn't so fond
of the idea of a hollow cave under the earth and little people rolling
around in it. The second because I think the story simply puts it too
far, despite the interesting idea of Scrooge the complainer becoming a
postman himself. But even though these stories don't fit in my personal
view of the Barks universe (or at least not as well as others), I won't
put them aside as not really happening - I just don't like them as much
as the rest and that's all.
When writing a lifestory using all Barks' stories, it of course becomes
a very different matter and then descisions have to be made. Okay, the
hourglass and Penny Wise are not used in the Life of Scrooge (big deal),
they can be ignored like any other story a writer or reader wishes.
What I wrote about is that some people now call some stories non-existant
or "fictional fiction" *because* of the omission in the "Life of $crooge".
I don't agree with that, but that's of course all IMO.
> But... sometime I think you're trolling. In your own previous message
> you wrote:
>> But nescessarily *believing* in it as blindly the one and only sacred
>> truth... no. Having seen Monty Python's "Life of Brian" years ago
>> (which could be a view on fandom as much as religion), made me clear
>> how annoying that would be - most likely not in the least to the maker
>> himself.
> And then you next say that 100% of everything Barks ever wrote about
> $crooge *must* be accepted literally. Maybe you're pulling our
> collective leg here, and I'm too dense to catch the joke?
This is not the case, because that was not what I said. Maybe this could
be a summary of both letters: All stories are 'equal' to me, while they
(as a whole or individually) don't need to be taken as the one and only
'sacred way' of how the duck universe should be looked at.
I used the film "Life of Brian" as an example of how impossible it can be
for a person when suddenly everyone absorbs every word he says, taking it
as the one and only truth.
VIDAR SVENDSEN to me:
>> I think that even *with* magic hourglass, Scrooge would have gotten
>> the bad news about the big losses. Only, instead of blaming it on the
>> hourglass, he would have put the losses straight with his experience
>> and his strong personality.
> But the other ducks find a lake of diamonds while they have the
> hourglass... Maybe magic hourglasses really exists in the Duck
> universe? *Magic* certainly does? (every time I read a Barks story)
In one Barks-story (US 40), the ducks are even changed into animals by
Magica. So, magic must indeed exist in Barks' stories. The idea of
finding diamonds in the desert instead of water was later reused in a
short Scrooge story, without any magic hourglasses. So, at least you
don't *need* them to find treasures. :-)
Of course, it's a very odd coincidence that the ducks find lakes of
diamonds with the hourglass in their possesion, but there have been
stranger things in Barks' stories. (Fabulous philosopher stones,
golden rivers, planets immediately growing out of a bit of mud, etc.)
So, IMO the diamond-lake may indeed be found because of the hourglass,
while it still is *not* the catalyzer or root of Scrooge's fortune.
I think he was somehow led to believe that, undermining his self-
confidence as soon as he heard the bad news while remembering giving
away the hourglass.
Greetings,
--- Daniel
>> [Magic Hourglass] No, I don't agree on the "fictional fiction" you
>> [Jonathan] mention. For me, either *all* Barks-stories really happened
>> or *none* of them happened at all.
> You seem to ignore the fact that Barks' stories in a few instances
> (not many, but over the 5-year-development and 15 year use of $crooge,
> there were several) contradicted themselves such that it's not possible
> to regard *all* Barks' stories as really happening.
With "really happened" I was not thinking about a timeline or timeframe.
I meant that I find it strange to hear someone call certain Barks-stories
'non-existant', just like something similar has happened to Ludwig Von
Drake who now also doesn't seem to exist.
> I never changed a fact in Barks' $crooge-history unless I had no
> choice. Even when it was merely difficult to make sense of certain
> facts, I would force them into logistics and found ways to *make* it
> make sense in the "Lo$".
And you did a great job on that!
> I choose to have my own private fun and place Barks and my stories into
> a general continuity, but I am still forced to ignore about a
> half-dozen of his 500 stories for that to be possible.
That's perfectly okay, of course. I was not pointing at you or at the
"Life of $crooge" itself. My ideas on Scrooge's superstition were just my
thoughts on how the story *still* could fit in with the Life of Scrooge
series, because I have always wondered about any compatibilty problems
between the story and your series. In my imagination, at least, they
perfectly fit together the way they are. Another such story is the "Penny
Wise" one, I also think there could be a way to fit it in. I'm not saying
that you should or anything like that, it's just my imagination on them.
> But to claim to regard 100% of Barks stories as being 100% continuity-
> feasible is not possible. Therefore, since there are definitely self-
> contradictory facts within Barks' 500 stories so that accepting 100%
> of them is paradoxical, but that you insist that one can only accept
> either 0% or 100% of his stories as being part of his own "Universe",
> you're therefore saying that you accept 0% of his stories. Do you
> *really* want to say that?
Again, I was not talking from a timeline or timeframe point of view.
*I* personally have more problems with stories like "Land Beneath the
Ground" and "Interplanetary Postman". The first because I wasn't so fond
of the idea of a hollow cave under the earth and little people rolling
around in it. The second because I think the story simply puts it too
far, despite the interesting idea of Scrooge the complainer becoming a
postman himself. But even though these stories don't fit in my personal
view of the Barks universe (or at least not as well as others), I won't
put them aside as not really happening - I just don't like them as much
as the rest and that's all.
When writing a lifestory using all Barks' stories, it of course becomes
a very different matter and then descisions have to be made. Okay, the
hourglass and Penny Wise are not used in the Life of Scrooge (big deal),
they can be ignored like any other story a writer or reader wishes.
What I wrote about is that some people now call some stories non-existant
or "fictional fiction" *because* of the omission in the "Life of $crooge".
I don't agree with that, but that's of course all IMO.
> But... sometime I think you're trolling. In your own previous message
> you wrote:
>> But nescessarily *believing* in it as blindly the one and only sacred
>> truth... no. Having seen Monty Python's "Life of Brian" years ago
>> (which could be a view on fandom as much as religion), made me clear
>> how annoying that would be - most likely not in the least to the maker
>> himself.
> And then you next say that 100% of everything Barks ever wrote about
> $crooge *must* be accepted literally. Maybe you're pulling our
> collective leg here, and I'm too dense to catch the joke?
This is not the case, because that was not what I said. Maybe this could
be a summary of both letters: All stories are 'equal' to me, while they
(as a whole or individually) don't need to be taken as the one and only
'sacred way' of how the duck universe should be looked at.
I used the film "Life of Brian" as an example of how impossible it can be
for a person when suddenly everyone absorbs every word he says, taking it
as the one and only truth.
VIDAR SVENDSEN to me:
>> I think that even *with* magic hourglass, Scrooge would have gotten
>> the bad news about the big losses. Only, instead of blaming it on the
>> hourglass, he would have put the losses straight with his experience
>> and his strong personality.
> But the other ducks find a lake of diamonds while they have the
> hourglass... Maybe magic hourglasses really exists in the Duck
> universe? *Magic* certainly does? (every time I read a Barks story)
In one Barks-story (US 40), the ducks are even changed into animals by
Magica. So, magic must indeed exist in Barks' stories. The idea of
finding diamonds in the desert instead of water was later reused in a
short Scrooge story, without any magic hourglasses. So, at least you
don't *need* them to find treasures. :-)
Of course, it's a very odd coincidence that the ducks find lakes of
diamonds with the hourglass in their possesion, but there have been
stranger things in Barks' stories. (Fabulous philosopher stones,
golden rivers, planets immediately growing out of a bit of mud, etc.)
So, IMO the diamond-lake may indeed be found because of the hourglass,
while it still is *not* the catalyzer or root of Scrooge's fortune.
I think he was somehow led to believe that, undermining his self-
confidence as soon as he heard the bad news while remembering giving
away the hourglass.
Greetings,
--- Daniel
Gerstein, David DK - ECN
Disney comics Digest V98 (various)
Message 529 -
1998-08-31 at 03:50:56
RICH:
>The Phantom Blot was
>originally named "The Blot" by his creator, Floyd Gottfredson, but
>everyone, even the official archives at Disney now call him "The
>Phantom Blot."
Eh?
People seem to forget that in the original Blot story, when
Chief O' Hara is first telling Mickey about the case that he's about to
get involved with, he refers to the Blot as "this 'phantom' we're
after..." That's where the modifier comes from, and of course it's most
certainly a Gottfredsonian source.
>This is indeed an interesting perspective... perhaps a bit of irony?
>Does anyone know of a specific tale inwhich Gyro (or someone else)
>actually states that "Little Helper" was an invention of Gyros.
Yes. There's the Barks story in SUMMER FUN #2 - "Fun, What's
That?" Scrooge and Gyro are camping to rest their nerves. They need to
clear the bats out of a cave so that they can sleep inside, and Gyro
prepares to invent a "cave clearer-outer." But Helper beats him to it,
flashing his bulb at the bats and scaring them out himself. "Looks like
I've *already* invented a cave clearer-outer," Gyro says - the
reference, of course, being to Helper. So Helper *was* invented by Gyro.
Now, re: Mickey's nephews. When first published in the Sunday
strip, their introductory story was indeed untitled. But partway
through, Mickey introduces the boys to Minnie and says "I wantcha to
meet my two nephews." That's where the official relationship is first
defined, and it's Mickey himself who puts it that way.
Gottfredson, BTW, was wrong at times, himself. He often
mentioned "Orphans' Benefit" as the first cartoon where the nephew-type
mice appear (and from which Walt Disney asked Gottfredson to develop the
nephews), but "Benefit" wasn't in production yet in 1932. Instead, the
boys actually come from "Mickey's Nightmare" - which is indeed from
1932, and thus *much* nearer in release schedule to when the first comic
stories with the nephews appeared.
DANIEL:
Re - deterioration... a sad story.
>And cartoons? Are only the at this moment popular ones being saved,
>resulting in many other gems slowly but steadily disappearing?
Here's what I believe to be the current situation:
Disney (1922-1926, 1928-present) - cartoons properly safeguarded
by the studio: negatives transfered from nitrate to stable stock
Disney/Universal (1927-1928) - cartoon negatives held by
Universal, which claims to have all of them although the actual validity
of the claim is unknown to me. NOT safeguarded.
Warners - cartoons (including black and white ones, contrary to
belief) safeguarded by the studio
MGM - cartoons safeguarded by owners
Lantz/Universal - cartoon negatives held by studio, but NOT
safeguarded: earlier, nitrate negatives could decay and never be seen
again.
Fleischer (non-Popeye) - cartoon negatives held by Republic
Pictures with a few missing; NOT safeguarded. That's right; even the
cartoons on the recent Betty Boop laserdisc boxed set were reproduced
from unstable materials that may not last much longer.
Fleischer (Popeye) - cartoons safeguarded by owners
Famous Studios (pre-1950 non-Popeye) - cartoon negatives held by
Republic Pictures with a few missing; NOT safeguarded.
Famous Studios (post-1950 non-Popeye) - negatives held by Harvey
Comics, status unknown
Famous Studios (Popeye) - cartoons safeguarded by owners
Mintz/Columbia - negatives DID exist, but vast majority of
earlier material (around a thousand!) was destroyed by the owners within
the last ten years. Remaining material partly safeguarded.
Terrytoons - cartoon negatives held by Viacom; safeguard status
unknown.
OLE:
You said my Gyro story was... some Danish word. I'm learning
Danish, so I might understand it if I saw it right, but my computer
shows it as "tr=E5kig" - so I don't know what you wrote. I take it you
weren't that hot on it, though. :-P
Speaking of not-hotness, I won't try to defend the T. S.
Eliot-related story that I wrote for the Ekstra this month. I wrote it
long ago in 1994, and looking back on it, I don't think I properly set
up Donald's ambition to be a detective in the opening pages. He just
suddenly decides to be one, and then begins referring to famous
detectives who've inspired him (the kind of references that really
should have been appearing from the first page of the story). Oh, well;
we all have our bad days sometimes.
ANDERS:
Gyro's hammer is a Barks creation. I am willing to bet it's Vic
Lockman who came up with the thinking cap with the birds, later on. I
have a hunch the thinking cap was intended as a non-violent substitute
for the hammer, but I figure it's an okay creation in its own right - as
long as we aren't led to believe Gyro is DUMB *without* the hat, as a
few stories have attempted to prove.
FRANCOIS:
>There is another similar strip, but earlier, ZM 37-11-14, with "Tonton
>Dizzy" (could be the original name with 'Uncle' instead of 'Tonton'),
Great character! And his name is originally Ophal Dizzy. I used
him in a story a while back, just because I liked him so much (although
he didn't get a lot to do).
David Gerstein
<(Email removed)>
>The Phantom Blot was
>originally named "The Blot" by his creator, Floyd Gottfredson, but
>everyone, even the official archives at Disney now call him "The
>Phantom Blot."
Eh?
People seem to forget that in the original Blot story, when
Chief O' Hara is first telling Mickey about the case that he's about to
get involved with, he refers to the Blot as "this 'phantom' we're
after..." That's where the modifier comes from, and of course it's most
certainly a Gottfredsonian source.
>This is indeed an interesting perspective... perhaps a bit of irony?
>Does anyone know of a specific tale inwhich Gyro (or someone else)
>actually states that "Little Helper" was an invention of Gyros.
Yes. There's the Barks story in SUMMER FUN #2 - "Fun, What's
That?" Scrooge and Gyro are camping to rest their nerves. They need to
clear the bats out of a cave so that they can sleep inside, and Gyro
prepares to invent a "cave clearer-outer." But Helper beats him to it,
flashing his bulb at the bats and scaring them out himself. "Looks like
I've *already* invented a cave clearer-outer," Gyro says - the
reference, of course, being to Helper. So Helper *was* invented by Gyro.
Now, re: Mickey's nephews. When first published in the Sunday
strip, their introductory story was indeed untitled. But partway
through, Mickey introduces the boys to Minnie and says "I wantcha to
meet my two nephews." That's where the official relationship is first
defined, and it's Mickey himself who puts it that way.
Gottfredson, BTW, was wrong at times, himself. He often
mentioned "Orphans' Benefit" as the first cartoon where the nephew-type
mice appear (and from which Walt Disney asked Gottfredson to develop the
nephews), but "Benefit" wasn't in production yet in 1932. Instead, the
boys actually come from "Mickey's Nightmare" - which is indeed from
1932, and thus *much* nearer in release schedule to when the first comic
stories with the nephews appeared.
DANIEL:
Re - deterioration... a sad story.
>And cartoons? Are only the at this moment popular ones being saved,
>resulting in many other gems slowly but steadily disappearing?
Here's what I believe to be the current situation:
Disney (1922-1926, 1928-present) - cartoons properly safeguarded
by the studio: negatives transfered from nitrate to stable stock
Disney/Universal (1927-1928) - cartoon negatives held by
Universal, which claims to have all of them although the actual validity
of the claim is unknown to me. NOT safeguarded.
Warners - cartoons (including black and white ones, contrary to
belief) safeguarded by the studio
MGM - cartoons safeguarded by owners
Lantz/Universal - cartoon negatives held by studio, but NOT
safeguarded: earlier, nitrate negatives could decay and never be seen
again.
Fleischer (non-Popeye) - cartoon negatives held by Republic
Pictures with a few missing; NOT safeguarded. That's right; even the
cartoons on the recent Betty Boop laserdisc boxed set were reproduced
from unstable materials that may not last much longer.
Fleischer (Popeye) - cartoons safeguarded by owners
Famous Studios (pre-1950 non-Popeye) - cartoon negatives held by
Republic Pictures with a few missing; NOT safeguarded.
Famous Studios (post-1950 non-Popeye) - negatives held by Harvey
Comics, status unknown
Famous Studios (Popeye) - cartoons safeguarded by owners
Mintz/Columbia - negatives DID exist, but vast majority of
earlier material (around a thousand!) was destroyed by the owners within
the last ten years. Remaining material partly safeguarded.
Terrytoons - cartoon negatives held by Viacom; safeguard status
unknown.
OLE:
You said my Gyro story was... some Danish word. I'm learning
Danish, so I might understand it if I saw it right, but my computer
shows it as "tr=E5kig" - so I don't know what you wrote. I take it you
weren't that hot on it, though. :-P
Speaking of not-hotness, I won't try to defend the T. S.
Eliot-related story that I wrote for the Ekstra this month. I wrote it
long ago in 1994, and looking back on it, I don't think I properly set
up Donald's ambition to be a detective in the opening pages. He just
suddenly decides to be one, and then begins referring to famous
detectives who've inspired him (the kind of references that really
should have been appearing from the first page of the story). Oh, well;
we all have our bad days sometimes.
ANDERS:
Gyro's hammer is a Barks creation. I am willing to bet it's Vic
Lockman who came up with the thinking cap with the birds, later on. I
have a hunch the thinking cap was intended as a non-violent substitute
for the hammer, but I figure it's an okay creation in its own right - as
long as we aren't led to believe Gyro is DUMB *without* the hat, as a
few stories have attempted to prove.
FRANCOIS:
>There is another similar strip, but earlier, ZM 37-11-14, with "Tonton
>Dizzy" (could be the original name with 'Uncle' instead of 'Tonton'),
Great character! And his name is originally Ophal Dizzy. I used
him in a story a while back, just because I liked him so much (although
he didn't get a lot to do).
David Gerstein
<(Email removed)>
Chris Miller
Gladstome Disney Comics
Message 530 -
1998-08-31 at 04:05:38
Hello,
I have been a somewhat avid collector of Disney Comics since I was about 7
(which was 12 years ago). I have a fairly decent collection but would love
to expand it. I have a few that I am willing to trade, but am mainly
interested in just buying them from someone that is looking to make more
room for something else. If you know of anyone, please contact me via
e-mail. If you have some you would like to sell, please e-mail me with the
issue numbers and price of each as well as a way to get in touch with you.
Thanks for the help.
Please Respond To:
Chris Miller
(Email removed)
--------------------------------
End of Disney comics Digest V98 Issue #180
******************************************
I have been a somewhat avid collector of Disney Comics since I was about 7
(which was 12 years ago). I have a fairly decent collection but would love
to expand it. I have a few that I am willing to trade, but am mainly
interested in just buying them from someone that is looking to make more
room for something else. If you know of anyone, please contact me via
e-mail. If you have some you would like to sell, please e-mail me with the
issue numbers and price of each as well as a way to get in touch with you.
Thanks for the help.
Please Respond To:
Chris Miller
(Email removed)
--------------------------------
End of Disney comics Digest V98 Issue #180
******************************************
Bror Hellman
MERCURY NEWS Mickey Mouse STRIP
Message 531 -
1998-08-31 at 08:39:40
>JEFF CONNER:
>>Recently, I found the MM strip on the internet.
>>http://comics.mercurycenter.com
> As far as I knew, MM & DD strips had stopped nationwide (America)
years ago, though it is my under-
> standing that an ocassional "special" comic is run for holidays, but
I've never seen any of these either!
> Boy am I happy you shared this! :-)
Then suddenly one question comes to mind... What about the Donald Duck
comic strip?
Anyone seen it? Anyone seen it on the net?
How come KFS doesn't run the MM strip on their homepage?
Is it because it's actually stopped and that mercury is running reprints
only?
Steamboat Willie
>>Recently, I found the MM strip on the internet.
>>http://comics.mercurycenter.com
> As far as I knew, MM & DD strips had stopped nationwide (America)
years ago, though it is my under-
> standing that an ocassional "special" comic is run for holidays, but
I've never seen any of these either!
> Boy am I happy you shared this! :-)
Then suddenly one question comes to mind... What about the Donald Duck
comic strip?
Anyone seen it? Anyone seen it on the net?
How come KFS doesn't run the MM strip on their homepage?
Is it because it's actually stopped and that mercury is running reprints
only?
Steamboat Willie
Ventnor
Donald as Surfer
Message 532 -
1998-08-31 at 11:39:34
In keeping with Donald Duck's free lifestyle, he often seems to be portrayed
as a surfer. Three stories that come to mind are "Mid-Winter Surfie",
"Monster from the Deep" (where Gyro Gearloose's submarine surfaces
underneath his surfboard), and "Duck out of Luck", where he changes into his
"surfing woolies". Does anyone know of any other such stories?
David King
as a surfer. Three stories that come to mind are "Mid-Winter Surfie",
"Monster from the Deep" (where Gyro Gearloose's submarine surfaces
underneath his surfboard), and "Duck out of Luck", where he changes into his
"surfing woolies". Does anyone know of any other such stories?
David King
Bror Hellman
Donald as Surfer
Message 533 -
1998-08-31 at 12:10:46
Yes, I remember Donald as a surfer. I know that, bevause it was Disney
Comics who made me familiar with the=20
expression "cowabunga" as opposed to most of my countrymen who
associates "cowabunga" not to surfers
but to a certain quartet of adolescent non-Disney turtles.=20
Steamboat Willie
> ----------
> Fr=E5n: (Email removed)[SMTP:(Email removed)]
> Skickat: den 31 augusti 1998 10:39
> Till: (Email removed)
> Ang=E5ende: Donald as Surfer
>=20
> In keeping with Donald Duck's free lifestyle, he often seems to be
> portrayed
> as a surfer. Three stories that come to mind are "Mid-Winter Surfie",
> "Monster from the Deep" (where Gyro Gearloose's submarine surfaces
> underneath his surfboard), and "Duck out of Luck", where he changes
> into his
> "surfing woolies". Does anyone know of any other such stories?
>=20
> David King
>=20
>=20
> =20
>=20
Comics who made me familiar with the=20
expression "cowabunga" as opposed to most of my countrymen who
associates "cowabunga" not to surfers
but to a certain quartet of adolescent non-Disney turtles.=20
Steamboat Willie
> ----------
> Fr=E5n: (Email removed)[SMTP:(Email removed)]
> Skickat: den 31 augusti 1998 10:39
> Till: (Email removed)
> Ang=E5ende: Donald as Surfer
>=20
> In keeping with Donald Duck's free lifestyle, he often seems to be
> portrayed
> as a surfer. Three stories that come to mind are "Mid-Winter Surfie",
> "Monster from the Deep" (where Gyro Gearloose's submarine surfaces
> underneath his surfboard), and "Duck out of Luck", where he changes
> into his
> "surfing woolies". Does anyone know of any other such stories?
>=20
> David King
>=20
>=20
> =20
>=20
Daniel Van Eijmeren
Oops! (Reply to "Reply to Don and Vidar")
Message 534 -
1998-08-31 at 20:28:42
Sorry for the double-posting of my mail "Reply to Don and Vidar". After
finishing it, I saw a little mistake which I then corrected, but
unfortunately I forgot to remove the uncorrected version out of the queue.
The only difference is the phrase "Neither of them," which got changed
into "This is not the case,". I misread and thought that two things were
mentioned, but in fact it was one.
Greetings,
--- Daniel
finishing it, I saw a little mistake which I then corrected, but
unfortunately I forgot to remove the uncorrected version out of the queue.
The only difference is the phrase "Neither of them," which got changed
into "This is not the case,". I misread and thought that two things were
mentioned, but in fact it was one.
Greetings,
--- Daniel
Daniel Van Eijmeren
!!! Arthur ???
Message 535 -
1998-08-31 at 21:23:19
ARTHUR DE WOLF:
> By the way, people are always saying to me that I am using too many
> exclamation marks in my emails, using one to end almost every
> sentence! I guess I have been reading to many comics! Why do almost
> all sentences in comic stories end with them?! Is there a reason?
In a recent Walt Disney Comics & Stories (600+), an article told that
a exclamation mark (!) is more recognizable than a period (.) . Before a
story got in print, spots which got stuck on the art were whitened out,
but sometimes they also whitened out periods by mistake. For that reason,
the more recognizable exclamation point was used. The WDC&S article
showed an example of a chicken which in print only looked at the ground,
while there was a small worm-hole (a period) in the original.
I'm writing this from memory, so if someone has a more detailled
explanation, please go ahead.
Greetings,
--- Daniel
> By the way, people are always saying to me that I am using too many
> exclamation marks in my emails, using one to end almost every
> sentence! I guess I have been reading to many comics! Why do almost
> all sentences in comic stories end with them?! Is there a reason?
In a recent Walt Disney Comics & Stories (600+), an article told that
a exclamation mark (!) is more recognizable than a period (.) . Before a
story got in print, spots which got stuck on the art were whitened out,
but sometimes they also whitened out periods by mistake. For that reason,
the more recognizable exclamation point was used. The WDC&S article
showed an example of a chicken which in print only looked at the ground,
while there was a small worm-hole (a period) in the original.
I'm writing this from memory, so if someone has a more detailled
explanation, please go ahead.
Greetings,
--- Daniel
Daniel Van Eijmeren
Donald as Surfer
Message 536 -
1998-08-31 at 21:32:57
DAVID KING:
> In keeping with Donald Duck's free lifestyle, he often seems to be
> portrayed as a surfer. Three stories that come to mind are "Mid-Winter
> Surfie", "Monster from the Deep" [...], and "Duck out of Luck", where
> he changes into his "surfing woolies". Does anyone know of any other
> such stories?
There's also the very funny Barks-story "Double Masquerade" (WDC 280).
In this story, Donald is even a member of a surf-club.
Greetings,
--- Daniel (again from memory)
--------------------------------
End of Disney comics Digest V98 Issue #214
******************************************
> In keeping with Donald Duck's free lifestyle, he often seems to be
> portrayed as a surfer. Three stories that come to mind are "Mid-Winter
> Surfie", "Monster from the Deep" [...], and "Duck out of Luck", where
> he changes into his "surfing woolies". Does anyone know of any other
> such stories?
There's also the very funny Barks-story "Double Masquerade" (WDC 280).
In this story, Donald is even a member of a surf-club.
Greetings,
--- Daniel (again from memory)
--------------------------------
End of Disney comics Digest V98 Issue #214
******************************************