Keskustelujen arkisto

Luca Boschi wrote:

>...in "The Mail Pilot" (1933) is only Pete...

I took a good look at "The Mail Pilot" and, sure enough as you said, Pete
has no peg leg!

I stand corrected from my previous comment that Pete was always peg legged
in cartoons before 1936.

The only explanation that comes to mind is that the creators thought a
pilot with a peg leg would have been too unbelievable.

- Rod -

Guido Scala's death is really sad. He was a great artist with a
good, own style. The few stories written by himself were also
amazing and interesting.

It's also sad, that he has never received so much "glory" like
Cavazzano or Scarpa...

Alex

Hi, Rod, Henri, and all!

I sent the following message two days ago to the list, but it seems it
didn't... arrive.

I send it you again, since I'm sure it can be interesting. And I add some
lines for you...

*******

>>Incidentally, try to control the Romano Scarpa's "Tapioco VI" story, in the
>>MM comic book, where Pete was totally naked in a panel. Do you remember that
>>famous sequence of panels?
>
> No; and I'm in doubt if anyone outside of Italia has ever seen them. (Inducks
> tells me the story appeared in Italian editions only.)

Well, it seems impossible to me that INDUCKS doesn't list the american
version. The story was reprinted in "Mickey Mouse" # 256, April 1990, and
the
panel is the second on the 55th page. From that panel on, Mick and Pete are
naked in a sequence three pages long and Pete shows his peg-leg all the
time, under the the shoe he desn't wear anymore.
It's a WONDERFUL story, if you never read it, it deserves your attention!
>
>>Obviously, SCARPA knows a lot about SHOES... (this sort of joke should be
>>understandable only to the Italian-speaking memebers, I suppose).
>
> A dictionary explained this one to me. Very nice.

So, it seem that now all know the meaning of "Scarpa"! :-)

Indeed, I checked again to answer Marco's question properly.

And I see that Dave Gerstein is right. The whole production of Western,
starting with Hannah-Barks' "DD Finds Pirate's Gold", has BLACK PETE instead
of PEG-LEG PET. So, we can say that the "old" name of the villain survives
only in the Gottfredson's (and colleagues) production, poppin' up sometimes.
So, all the critics and columnists who went on calling the character
"Peg-leg" didn't do right.
I checked also the old Pete's movies. Well, in Barks' (not produced)
"Nortwest Mounted"
(1936), he was only Pete, and got no peg-leg anymore.

Starting from the beginning, in "Steamboat Willie" (1928) he has no name
(and I even wrote, and Disney USA approved my version, that the character
was not even Pete, but a "formative version" of Terrible Tom, announced in
an Ub Iwerks strip and later changed into Peg-Leg Pete).

In "The Cactus Kid" (1930), the villain is Peg Leg Pedro, in "The Klondike
Kid" (1932) is Peg Leg Pierre, in "The Mail Pilot" (1933) is only Pete...
But in "The Dognapper" ('35) and in "Mickey's Service Station" ('35) is Peg
Leg Pete again, as in the comic strips!
At least, in "Movin' Day" he still has not the peg-leg anymore and
he's called only Pete (in the movie we even can see his very signature). And
from here on, the name (or nickname) "Peg Leg" or "Peg-leg" doesn' survive
in the movies!

His following film is with DD ("The Riveter", 1940). And it really seems
that in no movies there is the name "Black Pete" al all.

It's not the same in the comic strips, where, even after the famous
changement in his leg-shoe ( in "Hidden River"), the peg-leg pops up again
sometimes, like in the 1948-49 story "MM and Eega Beeva in "Pflip Strange
Power", by Walsh and Gottfredson. the villains name is Peg-leg Pete again.

His following film is with DD ("The Riveter", 1940). And it really seems
that in no movies there is the name "Black Pete".

********

One more possibily. Is my opinion that the character's real name was "only"
Pete all the time, for the movie gang. For a while, they decided to add a
peg-leg, and the comics were compelled to follow this trend, adding the
surname "Peg-Leg", that maybe was just written somewhere in the early
movies' model sheets (but the strips preceded those movies, as sometimes
happened).

Later, when the Hannah-Barks Morgan ghost's story was in production, the
decison to add the surmane (?) Black to the character of Pete can be
suggeste from the name of the "Black Pirate", or even from "Blackbeard
Pirate". It should have been a reference for only one story, but whene the
follwing brand new story with Pete was produced at Disney (the second story
in which it was necessary to write his name, since was unnamed before),
someone decided to briung back "Black Pete", as in the Barks-Hannah story,
whose synopsis (officially coming from the Disney Studio).

So, this was not a Disney decision, but only a *Western* statuition. Trories
for the Daily Strips and stories for the comic books had no connection and
for this reason Pete was still "Peg-Leg" in the Eega Beeva & Pflip story in
1949, and "Black" in the comic books IN THE SAME TIME.

A "general" decision coming from Disney about this character should not have
so "skyzoid" consequences.

Cuntent?

And, what do you think about my theory?

Luca

> 4. R: Peg-leg Pete / Black Pete (Luca Boschi
>And, what do you think about my theory?
>
>Luca

Did Pete have always the same leg pegged? I remember reading somewhere, that
the peg leg was dropped off, because animators never remembered which leg it
was, left or right. I´m not sure.

Timo Ronkainen

.................................
"Rumble on, buxom bumble bee!
Go sit on cowslip - far from me!"

timoro at hotmail.com
timoro at sunpoint.net
http://members.nbci.com/_XMCM/timoro/
http://members.nbci.com/timoro/pamaus

_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.

At 15.32 12/01/2001 +0000, Frank Stajano wrote:

>> >http://marcobar.cce.unifi.it/DCML/pato1.jpg
>
>Yes, it's my favourite Barks short story! The one where Donald has a little
>plane and can produce rain on demand.
>

The Inducks code, as Armando already pointed out, is
W WDC 156-01.

>The shapes of the panels are different -- so different that this could even
>explain why the 1st panel was completely redone.

Yes, the original format was 4-tiered, while the Spanish reprint is 3-tiered.
Note that also the Italian reprints on TL 80 and AR 340 were 3-tiered: but
they used a different lay-out, keeping the original 4-tiered 1st page. So
the 3-tiers in EVERY page are different in the Italian and in the Spanish
version.

The Spanish enlarged the first and the last panels, which were (partly?)
redrawn. However, the peculiar fact is that the WHOLE story was TRACED
(it's a "lucido" in the Italian jargon).

>The (IMHO good) joke of "x is always an unknown" is original, ie absent in
>Barks.

This joke is missing also in the Italian version. So the Spanish one is
proved ;-) to be indipendent of the Italian!

>One could go on with nitpickings on the translation, but it's stuff that
>you could do with any translation of any story, so I don't think it's worth
>continuing.

That was not my intention, in fact... ;-)

Thanks to you and Armando for the feedback!

Marco

http://marcobar.cce.unifi.it/Comics

At 2001-01-13 20:20 +0100, Henri Kunne wrote:
> Other Dutch list members here with any expressed opinion about
>Voges' Disney art?

Obvious follow-up: why not putting up a few scans somewhere so that we can
all form first-hand opinions?

Frank (filologo disneyano) http://www.uk.research.att.com/~fms/

Hi, timo!

> Did Pete have always the same leg pegged? I remember reading somewhere, that
> the peg leg was dropped off, because animators never remembered which leg it
> was, left or right. I?m not sure.

In the comics (strips and stories) surely it happened. The same Gottfredson
made this mistake. If I well remember, in the "Bar None Ranch" story (1940),
Pete's peg leg is the right one or the left one, some strips later.

Luca

Regarding Henri Kunne's query over opinions on Carol Voges' Ducks:

Hoi Henri!

I agree with Harry. To me, Carol's Ducks are ugly. Of course, (as Ole
Reichstein Nielsen pointed out) that is likely because I am measuring the
quality of all Duck drawings based on my having been introduced to the
Ducks by seeing Carl Barks' Ducks. I do also like the Ducks of Walt
Kelly, Ben Verhagen, Freddy Milton, Daniel Branca, later Jan Gulbransson
work, Daan Jippes (his Barks type - not his Murray type), Jack Bradbury,
Marco Rota (at his best - quality of his Ducks varies from panel to panel);
pre 1959 (1958 and older) Tony Strobl work, and a few others...

I do Not like the Ducks of Carol, Romano Scarpa, post 1958 (1959 and later)
Tony Strobl work, most of the Italian artists, McSavage, Harry Balm, Danny
Wanner, Jules Coenen (sometimes), Marc de Jonge, most of the other Western
Publishing artists, Don Rosa, Paul Murray,many of the Hachette artists,
many of the Egmont Spanish artists....etc.

Eddy van Schuylenburg, Vicar, Jules Coenen (at his best), Michel Nadorp,
Endre Lucasz, Carpi, Cavazzano (at his best)

As you can tell from these lists, my views (as those of most people) come
from personal taste, and do not relate exactly to technical competence of
the artist. I like the Mice characters of Romano Scarpa very much; and
like Murray's Mouse/Dog characters much better than his Ducks. They are
both very talented and technically competent artists. It is a matter of
style chosen by the artist, and individual taste of the fan.

It is clear from Carol Voges drawings of funny animal characters, that he
put a lot of action and personality into them. He was an accomplished
cartoonist. I don't think one can "infer" from his Disney drawings that he
did that work grudgingly, so he could have Donald Duck Weekblad as a "forum
or outlet" for his cartoon work with human figures (although I believe that
to be somewhat true). The quality of his "Serious" work with human figures
did show a flair for it and love of that work , which may not show through
as strongly in his funny animal drawings.

It will be interesting to see what other DCML members say. Rob Klein