Keskustelujen arkisto

Thanks Ole for uploading McSavage's art for us to see (and for mine also).
I apologise for calling his drawing "poor". He is an accomplished and
capable artist. His work is a bit more stylised than that of many of the
more conventional Duck artists. Appreciating the differences between them
is a matter of taste. I guess I feel that he shows less differences in
expression than many of the others, and the extreme shortness of his duck's
bills is unpalatable to me, as I grew up with the long bills of Barks' 1940
Ducks and I grew up with REAL ducks (ALL of whom have long, narrow bills -
not short and wide).

Daniel: Now that I know that Carl himself indicated that the Parrot gag may
have been his, I feel that it is more likely than I thought that it was,
indeed by him. But, as you said, we still cannot be sure, as his memory
for all the more than 7,000 comic book pages he drew, even only 10 years
after, was not perfect. This unsureness is likely to be enhanced in
situations where he only submitted a gag in word description, as you
indicated may have been the case in this situation. Yes, Daniel, I will
send you a coloured version within 2 days.

Rob Klein

> From: Kriton Kyrimis
> Having my hands covered in
> hair grease, stepping into puddles of prune residue, and being drenched
> in snot is not my idea of a funny gag. I wonder why Don's editors didn't
> point this out to him, so that he could rewrite the gags without having
> to butcher the story to make it more palatebale.

You should know what you find disgusting, so I cannot argue with you for a
moment. Me, I found all the FART humor in Disney's own "Lion King" to be
beyond disgusting, but that's just me. And it was the Disney censor
*himself* that rewrote one of my obscure gags in "Guardians of the Lost
Library" and inserted the word "BARF" into *my* dialogue, which I found
disgusting *and* embarrassing since I got the "credit" for it.
I thought they were covered with prune goo laying on top of that giant
prune, and I saw nothing about having prune juice on you any worse than
being hit by a banana cream pie -- I intended the reader to decide for
himself what some of that goo was (chuckle). But I must say that as the
obvious lead-in to my main reason for replying to your comment -- to
correct the misconception which seems to be the main point of your comment.
That story was *not* "butchered" or censored in it's original publications
all across Europe, it appeared exactly as I created it. It was only in the
American Gladstone edition that it was cut, which is the version seen by
about 2% of all the readers of that particular story worldwide. To my
knowledge, they received no complaints from those millions of readers, but
that doesn't prove anything -- maybe it still should have been butchered?
Well, all I can say is that I'm trying to do funny comics, not "Disney"
comics. You need to decide for yourself when what I think is funny is not
what you think is funny, fair enough, and I can only hope I come out ahead
most of the time. (But I guaran-dang-tee you I'll never imitate Disney and
have a Beagle Boy FARTING all the way through a story.)

I was very shocked to hear Kriton, or anyone else for that matter applaud
Disney's censoring of a story. Even if you found the gags in poor taste,
you had the option of making your own decision. In the "land of free
speech" we weren't given the chance to decide these things for ourselves.
Someone at Disney decided for us that it wasn't appropriate for us to
read, assuming that this was inappropriate for young children, though I
question (and have always questioned) how many children read comic books
in the USA period-much less one that costs $6.95.

Every single day I see examples of censorship of things in order to make
them "appropriate" and "suitable for all ages." Classic comedy films,
comics, and cartoons are constantly having scenes and panels taken away
in order to make sure that no one is offended, and as a result of this,
no one is amused.

Technically, since Don's story involved *Walt Disney's* Uncle Scrooge,
they did have the right to censor the story. But really, I don't think
it was right or fair for Don as an artist, and storyteller to have to see
his vision of the finished product mutilated. Of course, I'm sure he's
used to it by now....................

Rodney Bowcock

________________________________________________________________
GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO!
Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less!
Join Juno today! For your FREE software, visit:
http://dl.www.juno.com/get/tagj.

I was glad to see (thanks to Kriton's description) that one of the stories I
did with William Van Horn ("Caught in the Cold Rush") has appeared in Komix
#150. I've heard wonderful things about Komix, but I've never actually seen a
copy.

In the past, a couple of Greek fans have offered to send me copies of Komix,
but I haven't taken them up on their offers because I didn't want them to go
to the expense. But now that I know one of my stories is actually in a
current (and I assume easily attainable) issue I would very much like a copy.

I'd be happy to pay for it (and the postage) or trade (possibly for a copy of
one of my scripts) if someone would be kind enough to send me a copy of Komix
#150. Contact me by private e-mail if you're interested.

--John Lustig

From: "Rodney w bowcock jr."
From: "Fernando Ventura"
Subject: Disney Censorship..Again!

I probably fueled these reactions by my own misuse of the generally
accepted meaning of the word "censorship". Disney can *never* censor its
own wholly owned material (and, even though they have nothing whatsoever to
do with the creation of my stories, the fact is they DO own it lock, stock
and barrel)(sorry, that's a gun reference, Disney will censor that). All
kidding aside (I'll try!), censorship is generally termed the banning of
content from public view by some agency other than the owner, such as a
government, a bookstore or video studio, or some pin-headed local
Republican politicians. Disney *edits* its own material, and they have
every right to do so for whatever reason they deem necessary. Now, I might
think they're being idiotic when they edit a prune-in-a-pocket out of my
story, and film buffs might think they're jerks when they screw around with
animation history (and we'd all be right) but I certainly support their
right to do it, and our only option is to ask them to reconsider.
As for Rodney's comment that I'm probably used to "censorship" (by whatever
definition) by now, well, I've really rarely experienced it. In fact, it's
only happened a few times in the Gladstone editions. What I might get used
to is careless screw-ups. Gladstone would frequently be forced to censor,
but they hardly ever screwed-up. Foreign publishers have *never* censored
my stories, but some of them frequently screw-up.
Heh... that just makes me think of the latest one. The "Three Caballeros
Ride Again!" story was sent out to publishers with an error in the song
sequence. Probably a computer-placement error since (as they say in
"Ghostbusters") NO HUMAN BEING would make such a dumb mistake. But in one
panel the sound effect of shattering pottery was numbered to appear in the
word balloon, and the song lyric was numbered as the sound of shattering
pottery. Huh? Oh, no, *that's* not the error I refer to, no, no! I sent out
an emergency e-mail to all the translators I regularly communicate with
(and am happy to do so) to alert them to the error, even though I thought
it might be an insulting comment on my part to seemingly believe anyone,
anywhere would not immediately spot such an obvious blunder and correct it
without being prodded. Especially since the editor would read it and give
it to the translator who would read it and give his translation to the
computer operator who would read it, so *at least* three people would see
this obvious fubar to prevent it from having any chance to possibly slip
through into print. And besides that, Egmont also sent out a script error
warning and correction. But... do we have any ML members here from Iceland?
Did you wonder why in your edition of that story in ONDRES OND Jose Carioca
suddenly burst forth with the lyrics "CRASH!!! Shatter!" and the shattering
pottery was going "What means 'aye, caramba'? Oh, yes, I don't know!" ?
And you other Scandinavians who recently saw my 24 illustrated Christmas
Calendar "baggies" that were included in the weekly, with the week's cover
featuring my drawing of $crooge opening a box of $$ with a huge,
poster-sized gift tag on it that says "TO $CROOGE - FROM $CROOGE"..... the
tag had to be gigantic because the art was taken from the tiny illustration
on the "baggie". They chose not to do the "baggies" in Iceland, but still
used the cover since it was still a self-contained gag in itself... of
$crooge opening a box with a huge, poster-sized, utterly BLANK sign
dangling from it. Perhaps they thought the gift was a solar panel?
Do I ever get used to such screw-ups, Rodney? Strangely........... no.

Thanks to Archontis I have a good deal of Komix issues, mainly with
Scarpa's stories, and I noticed that there are many articles about him.

What I'd like to know is whether these article are original or merely
copied from somewhere else (citing the source or not).

My guess is that most of these are translation from Italian articles by
Leonardo Gori, Luca Boschi and Alberto Becattini from "Le grande storie di
Romano Scarpa" Comic Art, "I Maestri Disney", "Romano Scarpa un cartoonist
italiano tra animazione e fumetti" or the Gladstone editions of Scarpa
stories, but it's just my supposition. I would hope they're not, so we'd
have some original contents.
If so, it would be nice if any of you Greeks here in list (you're hundreds
;-) could translate (hint, hint!) them in English for us ignorant (and
then I could re-translate them in Italian for my coming site, if they were
really original... especially the interview on #91).
Of course those English translation would look great on Apostolis' site,
huh? ;-)
All this would be useless if there were no original contents of course, so
I (we) need to know more about those articles, to see if they're original
or not.

- Komix 61, page 25.
A page that seems to be dedicated to Scarpa (there's the "Money Perfume"
sketch by Barks)... what's this about?

- Komix 63, page 25.
Another page, in the middle od the "McDuck Foundation" story, with some
pencils. What is it?

- Komix 91, page 61.
Now this is interesting: it looks like a short interview *made by Komix*.
Sound like this is really an original piece. What do they sey?

- Komix 119, page 53-54.
This is obviously Frank Stajano's page.
http://www.uk.research.att.com/~fms/disney/scarpa/
Is he, or his site, credited anywhere there?

- Komix 124, page 4-6.
Is this only about ancient Egypt or also about Scarpa?

- Konix 131, page 4-5.
All the pictures are obviously from Eta Beta's Last Balaboo's site
http://members.nbci.com/_XMCM/eega/scarpa/balaboo.html
Is he or his site credited?), but what about the text? What's it all
about?

- Komix 139, page52-54.
This seems to be an article about the Lentils of Babylon.

I don't own:
# 55 Kali's Nail Romano Scarpa
# 67 The Mystery of Tapiocus VI Romano Scarpa
# 112 ?

so I don't know if there are any articles there (if anybody had a double
copy of those... :-)

(BTW, on the Apostolis' page there's a "# 126 Paperino Pendolare Romano
Scarpa"; it is not Scarpa, it's Marco Rota)

So? Anybody wants to help?

--
Sprea

There is a website dedicated to Gyro's Helper:

http://home.planet.nl/~a.kuijk/lampje.htm

It's all in Dutch.

An interesting analysis of the "cube" story (from OS 1184) is on
http://home.planet.nl/~a.kuijk/lampje/fc1184b.htm
The interesting thing being that the author noticed that something is
missing in the story. But he doesn't know that the story was probably
shortened by Western.

His analysis may result in some interesting theories about what was in the
part that was cut...

--Harry.
Harry Fluks, Leidschendam, The Netherlands