Keskustelujen arkisto

From: "Arie Fachrisal"
>>>>>>>>.At long last the Kalevala story is being printed now in my
country.
The good news, the Kalevalian rune-o-meter lines translations were typed
with italic letters. The bad news, None of the eight-syllabels, or the
"bullet" to stress the words were translated perfectly.

Well, if I had to choose between wanting them to use a unique font OR
translate using the proper 8-syllable beat, I'd choose the font. The
rune-o-meter beat would be less noticeable of the two, and the important
thing is that the reader recognizes that dialogue as coming from
supernatural beings and spoken in some otherworldly manner.

>>>What's more interesting is that i heard rumors that the coloring were
done
by local studios, not by the foreign studios. Whether this is true or not,
i
have no idea. So i'll just describe the local version's colors. The first
panel: Scrooge money bin is colored green and the 2nd panel, all the coins
are yellow.

As I suspect you know, the Money Bin is plain white concrete. Due to
decades of European miscoloring, it's less obvious as an error, but the
coins should be mostly silver with a few copper pennies scattered around,
as the whole gag is that it is simple pocket-change, not valuable golden
coins. But Europe has done that for so long that it's not worth tampering
with the tradition. For example, if I found out that Barks had always
intended the colorists to make the Money Bin bright red, I'd still want it
to remain white because it would be too shocking a change in one of the
secular icons of my life. Maybe Europe feels that way about those
miscolored coins.

From: "Rodney w bowcock jr."
>>>I just got the new Overstreet price guide, and it looks like
"values" for US 179, DD 222 and WDC&S 480 have finally been adjusted. US
179 has the current market value of $125. which seems to fit nicely with
the prices we've seen it going for lately.

That seems a very reasonable amount. I've been following the sales of that
comic on eBay for a year or so... eBay is by no stretch of the imagination
the ONLY place stuff is sold in the world, yet a U$ #179 goes on sale there
once each month.

>>>>One last thing: The price guide says that US digest 5 is scarce,
meaning
that only 20-100 copies are known to exist. Can this be correct?

Of course not. It's hard to find because, as you know, it contains Barks'
last published story whereas all other issues were all reprints and hardly
of any interest except to mindless "completists" (like me!). I was buying
those Digests off the stands in the 60s, and that #5 came out right along
with all the others. And if there was no lack of them in Louisville (where
we had hideously poor magazine distribution in those days), there was no
lack of them anywhere. I would not say it's *common* to find one of those
Disney Digests, but #5 is no more or less scarce than #4 or #6.

From: Pietro Reynaud-Bersanino
>>>In 1930 sailor suit was a usual suit for young boys ... and DD was a
young
boy.

What? Rich kids wore sailor shirts back around 1905, not 1934. Donald wore
that outfit because they were creating a DUCK character, so like many other
duck characters before and after Donald, he was dressed like a sailor
because ducks travel around in water. The cartoon also showed him living on
a boat and dancing a sailor hornpipe. He was wearing the sailor-suit
because he was a sailor-duck (if only for that ONE time).
I wish Donald was not created wearing that sailor suit... I'd rather draw
him wearing normal clothes. But it really doesn't bother me so much since I
grew up with Donald long before I knew what a sailor suit was, so I just
see it as a "Donald Duck suit". Therefore I actually do feel like I'm
drawing him in normal clothes even though I'm not.

Someone else was discussing the characters seen in some early British
Disney storybook and why or whether they appeared before or later. It would
seem obvious that this storybook was not done by anyone connected with the
Disney Studios, just the same way Euro Disney stuff is created now... and
lordy knows that in 1930 they had very little control over foreign
licensing. This storybook used some Disney characters and made up others to
suit its needs. If a "Donald Duck" was used in 1930 in a one-shot British
storybook, it was surely just a coincidence -- Donald is a very common name
in England. It might have come out "David Duck" or "Dennis Duck" or...

But *I* have a question for a change: this has been puzzling me for a month
or so. Recently most all the weekly Egmonts came out with a cover showing
Huey, Dewey and Louie playing baseball. That alone would make me wonder a
bit, as baseball is not something kids outside of North America play much,
but never mind that... what puzzled me greatly was that they are playing
ball with a playmate who is a cartoon *ghost*, a Casper-sorta kid ....
(!?!?) .... and the ball is passing through the ghost's body. What's that
all about?!?!? Who is this ghost they stuck on the cover?
Another question: they tell me that "The Coin" has been published in
Finland, but the publisher says that the printer used the wrong scan
line-density so that the art looks all pixelated. Anyone notice that? Does
it look too bad? Meanwhile, I think "Attaaaaack!" was just printed in
PICSOU. And I sent "The Three Caballeros Ride Again" in about a month anna
half ago, so it should be appearing about 6 months from now (though that's
just a guess -- I have no connection with the scheduling).

What is the copyright status of the earliest Disney comics?

I'm going by memory but isn't copyrights 50 years after the death of the
original holder, or 75 years in the case of corporations?

Since many of the early comics go back 70 years, we must be nearing the
limit for some of them.

Still I also remember some controversy when back in the 60's (70's?) some
group published a bunch of early MM strips that had technically gone into
the public domain, but were threaten by Disney lawyers because of trademark
rather than copyright rules.

What's the story and when (if ever) will the early comics be in the public
domain?

______________________________________________
FREE Personalized Email at Mail.com
Sign up at http://www.mail.com/?sr=signup

In a message dated 5/16/00 6:06:16 AM, David Gerstein writes:

<<
Hey Rich,

>Based on the original question, I would definitely add to Donald's "creator
>credits" the book "The Adventures of Mickey Mouse" published by David McKay

>of New York and the poem entitled "More HooZoo" from the "Mickey Mouse
Annual"
>published by the English firm, Dean & Son, both printed in 1931
The Dean MM ANNUAL in question was really published in 1932, as
explained in several reference books. British annuals are traditionally
published for the Christmas season each year; the copy in my collection has
a holiday inscription dated 1932.
The poem in it, illustrated with comic art and some speech balloons,
is really titled "Mickey's 'Hoozoo', Witswitch, and Wotswot." The running
title "More Hoozoo" is just printed on the later pages of the poem so
readers will know that it's continuing.

>Oddly, another character, who seems to have originated from that list of
>Mickey's friends, never quite made it very far: Jenny Wren. She appeared
>in "Who shot Cock Robin?"
That should be WHO KILLED COCK ROBIN ("killed", not "shot").

Jenny Wren long predated the Disney cartoons. She appeared in a couple of
old Mother Goose rhymes (maybe more); one dealing with her wedding to Cock
Robin, and the second dealing with his accidental death and funeral ("Who
killed Cock Robin?/'I,' said the Sparrow. /'With my bow and arrow/I killed
Cock Robin.'") The cartoon, which I've never seen, seems to have been an
adaptation of the rhyme, possibly with a happier ending (Cock Robin wasn't
really dead?).

>Clara Hen (Cluck)
She's been Clara Cluck from the beginning in 1931, when McKay's
ADVENTURES OF MICKEY MOUSE BOOK 1 calls her "Clara Cluck the Hen".
The name "Clara Hen" is only used in the 1932 MICKEY MOUSE ANNUAL.
It was used when she'd already been Clara Cluck for a year. That means that
"Clara Hen" is very simply an *error* on the part of the English writer at
Dean and Son.>>

I know I asked a Disney archivist if Clara Cluck was the title character i
n THE WISE LITTLE HEN, and was told she wasn't...she was a different hen
character used in the Mickey Mouse shorts after Donald became a regular. THE
WISE LITTLE HEN was itself renamed; it had originally been called THE LITTLE
RED HEN, but Disney learned Ub Iwerks was working on a cartoon by the same
name (according to legend, because he'd offered Clarence Nash a part in
it...that's the traditional name of the folk tale on which both cartoons are
based), so changed the name of his short.

>and Patricia Pig fared only slightly better, but at least
>they are still around. Others like Robert Rooster and Olga Owl never
appeared
>again though.

The earliest MM Annuals have *lots* of characters who never appeared
again.

But there are some obscure characters out there who actually did
make regular return appearances.
Gideon Goat, the hick farmer from some 1930s Mickey Sunday pages, is
also a recurring character in 1930s W- and U-coded stories.
MICKEY MOUSE MAGAZINE and MICKEY MOUSE WEEKLY regularly include a
character named Sammy Skunk as a member of Mickey's gang. He looks like
Squeakie the squirrel from YM 003, but with a white stripe on his tail and
humanized.
MICKEY MOUSE MAGAZINE also includes a *giraffe* member of the gang
named Peninsula Giraffe. Looks like a younger version of the giraffe
character from Elmer Elephant. Fairly frequent around 1937.>>

You really know your Disney characters! But did Donald Duck actually
appear, or was he just mentioned? With the tradition of giving cartoon
characters alliterative or punny names, duplications do appear...DC Comics
had a Roger Rabbit before Disney's (the title character of their comic book
CAPTAIN CARROT AND HIS AMAZING ZOO CREW, who later changed his first name to
Rodney to avoid confusion...that strip also had a politician duck named
Mallard Fillmore who predated the title character of Bruce Tinsley's
reactionary newspaper strip), and I believe there was at least one Woody
Woodpecker besides the famous Walter Lantz character. Bill Blackbeard claimed
there were a pre-Disney Mickey and Minnie Mouse in one of Johnny Gruelle's
books, but I've never seen that documented elsewhere.

Pietro Reynaud-Bersanino wrote:

<<In DCML digest, Vol 1 #149,

Steven Rowe wrote:

>the sailor suit ? Didn't he do a hornpipe in the film?

In 1930 sailor suit was a usual suit for young boys ... and DD was a young
boy.>>

But was he? Walt Disney himself once said he wore a sailor suit because,
quite simply, he was a sailor. "Being a duck, he likes water. Water and
sailors go together. We'll make him a sailor." And, in that first cartoon, he
lived on a houseboat.

Still, the ages of the major Disney characters were always
indeterminate...no doubt deliberately so, to enable viewers of all ages to
identify with them. It's been said that that's one advantage to animal
characters, since animals age at a different rate from people anyway. (If a
temporary one; I have to agree with Don Rosa that, by Barks's day, Donald and
Scrooge and the rest were so thoroughly human that Scrooge's life span was
seen as that of a very vigorous man...nobody even considered how long actual
ducks live.) Mickey Mouse seems to have been thought of as a young boy at
first; wearing short pants (again, typical of young boys at the time but not
of adults) and spoken of at one point by Disney animators as possessing the
mischief of a 9-year-old but the mechanical expertise of a clever
14-year-old. The former didn't last and was seen mostly in the very early
cartoons, where the worst he did was to take any excuse to grab Minnie's
panties...and even that kind of sexual harrassment (seen from the perspective
of a different era) died quickly after a few slaps in the face from Minnie.
The latter seemed to last up to World War II (where a few cartoons showed him
definitely of draft age), after which he, almost symbolically, donned long
pants and became a middle-aged family man.

Donald Duck at first seemed to be considered as somewhat younger than
Mickey...certainly Floyd Gottfredson thought so, presenting him at first as li
ving with his guardian, "Uncle Amos" and subject to his discipline. But that
too changed quickly as he "grew up" and acquired his own girl friend and
family (and Huey, Dewey and Louie were far more ensconced in his life than
Morty and Ferdie ever were in Mickey's). I'd have to say that, analogous to
Disney's description of Mickey, Donald was a 25-year-old with the emotional
maturity of a 6-year-old...but since such individuals are all too common in
real life, he's hardly an unconvincing character...

Rich Morrissey

Rich Morrissey said:
> You [David] really know your Disney characters! But did Donald Duck
> actually appear, or was he just mentioned?

Yes, he did appear in the printed publication, though, I guess the date
needs to be changed from 1931 to 1932 for this picture:
http://www.jps.net/xephyr/rich/dzone/hoozoo/images/donald2.gif

As you can see this Donald Duck appears quite primitive when compared
to what we are used to seeing. Even so, Donald Duck was indeed one
of Mickey Mouse's barnyard friends as early as 1931, and was depicted
in the "HooZoo" Poem in 1932. Alliteration definitely played a big part
in the naming of these characters, but I don't think it was mere coincidence
that the cartoon star and the primitive duckling bore the same name. I
think the list of names (including Clara Cluck, Patricial Pig, Jenny Wren
and others) was something Walt had available as a resource for "actors" to
appear in his upcoming animated films. I believe he would pull from this
list of names as he (and Ub Iwerks, et al) would brainstorm about what the
next cartoon would be about and who would appear. I recall reading something
to that effect for how Donald was chosen to appear in "The Wise Little Hen."
David, I'm sure, can give more insight to that process.

Rich Bellacera

> From: "Oyvind J. Karstad"
> Don Rosa:
> Does anybody know if Egmont is going to publish the Aaaatack-story?

Egmont does not tell me those things.

> What are you working on now?

For PICSOU I am doing chapter 10b of the "Life and Times of $crooge
McDuck" -- this will be set in Panama in November, 1906, during Teddy
Roosevelt's inspection of the Canal excavation. The secret purpose of his
trip is to investigate a problem with the Canal Treaty -- the French who
had the previous lease sold the rights to one mountain to a certain
nouveau-riche tycoon from Calisota who is blocking the Canal while he digs
for gold with his two sisters. TR must secretly personally help the
prospector find his treasure before the Panamanian General learns of the
problem and uses it as an excuse to stage a military coup and seize the
isthmus as dictator to the future of world trade.
How's that?

RODNEY, ALL interested parties

>Someone (Arie?) asked if Spielberg "stole" any of Barks' ideas. Though I
>can't say it was outright "stealing" I do recall reading in an old Cross
>Talk column (Gladstone's "coming attractions" feature for those of you
>who don't know) that Barks' Micro Ducks From Outer Space (US 65) story
>was the inspiration for the the movie Batteries Not Included.

Well, I seem to recall reading somewhere that Spielberg actually
admitted being inspired by the ending of "Seven Cities of Cibola"
for the beginning of an Indiana Jones movie, "Temple of Doom" I
guess it was...

Also, since I'm on the topic, I'll mention again the Italian
movie entirely inspired by a Romano Scarpa story, I TL 158-A +,
"Topolino e il Pippotarzan", directed by Ettore Scola in 1968
and titled "Will our heroes succed in finding their friend,
mysteriously disappeared in Africa?" (literal translation of the
Italian title, don't know whether the movie ever circulated
abroad...)

Cheers

Eta Beta

The Norwegian publisher has posted a page (2 pages!)
about Marco Rota at
http://www.disney.no/DonaldDuck/bibliotek/no_marco_rota.html

----------------------------------------------------
Vidar Svendsen http://members.home.com/vsvendsen/

"Nothing travels faster than the speed of light
with the possible exception of bad news,
which obeys its own special laws."