Keskustelujen arkisto

> 3. At the same time we are blessed with a new Don Rosa
> story, appearing as a special bonus issue accompanying DD & Co
> #49 (issue of December 2nd). It's a tribute to Scrooge, on
> what might be defined as his 55th anniversary. This is Don's
> most Jungian story so far, and I enjoyed it thoroughly.
>
> Could you give us the title of this story?

Orginal title: "The Dream of a Lifetime"

Norwegian title: "En drøm for livet"

And hopefully our Danish friends will enlighten us with the
Danish title during the next 24 hours.

Sigvald :-)

Hi all!

First an apology for the way I spoke about some non-Disney
comics yesterday. I was acting like a typical football
(here in its European meaning = soccer) supporter who often
tends to describe opponent teams to their favourite team
that way. I think that our English friend Vic can confirm
that many non Man. Utd. supporters are using a lot tougher
language about Man. Utd. than the language I used. But OK,
I realise now that this is not how it works in the world
of comics.

Today I have been collecting some facts about comics
calendars and similar calendars in various stores in
Stavanger where I live so that you can draw your own
conclusion about this matter. Here is what I found:

ARK Berge (book store):
--------------------------------
Pondus ? NOK 95
Gary Larson ? NOK 129
Tolkien ? 149
Don Rosa ? 159

Gardum (book store):
--------------------------------
Pondus ? NOK 99
Nemi ? NOK 99

Narvesen (large kiosk)
--------------------------------
Pondus ? NOK 98
Nemi ? NOK 98

Sigvald :-)

> I wonder if you've ever read Calvin & Hobbes? Now, *that*'s a comic I
> would definitely describe as 'real quality'. And as for Donald Duck: you
> know as well as I do that there are many Duck stories of 'very poor
quality'
> out there. (Without suggesting, of course, that your beloved Don Rosa
> calendar might be of 'inferior quality'. I haven't seen it.)
>
> Is it possible to define 'quality', or is it just personal?
> (I think it must be possible to define it, but I wouldn't know how.)

Calvin & Hobbes comes about as close to "objective" quality as it's possible
to come. It has the unique distinction of having won two Reuben Awards in
its first three years, and is almost as popular in reruns as it was when it
was first coming out -- and that's VERY popular.

For that matter, I'm a big fan of Ernie, too, and Beetle Bailey often gets a
laugh out of me as well -- certainly, its average quality is at least on a
level with that of Donald Duck, considering how many different hands have
gone into producing both over the years. I've never seen Pondus, but from
the company it's in here, I suspect I'd probably like it.

Quack, Don

Today in Toons: Every day's an anniversary.
http://www.toonopedia.com/today.htm

At 04:38 05.12.02 -0700, Donald D. Markstein wrote:
> I've never seen Pondus, but from
>the company it's in here, I suspect I'd probably like it.
>
>Quack, Don

Pondus is a relatively new (well it's been around for some years now)
Norwegian comic strip that har gained a remarkable popularity here in
Norway (and also in Sweden from what i hear).

And yes! It's definitely making people laugh, including me. This comic
strip can in no way be described as low quality.

Regards
Halsten

I'm with Don and Michiel regarding Calvin & Hobbes. Bill Watterson is a
brilliant cartoonist,
and his C&H drawings are among the most enjoyable to *look* at of any I've ever
seen. They are certainly far more expressive and original than most Disney
product, except
for Don Rosa, Carl Barks, and a number of other Duck artists of
merit. Couple that with
Watterson's wry commentaries on life (everything from the meaning of it all to
deep theological reflections and everything in-between), and you have a
strip that bears
returning to again and again. C&H is the only strip that ever had me fall
off a chair howling
with laughter.

The fact that Sigvald would place C&H in the same sentence as *that* s-word
leads me to
believe that he has never read any. Am I correct, Sigvald?

And while we're on the topic of great non-Disney cartoons, let us not
forget Bloom County,
Outland, and The Far Side. Where have you all gone???

Dave Fenske
- drooling over the anticipated return of Rosa stories to the
English-speaking world.

At 04:38 AM 12/5/02 -0700, Donald D. Markstein wrote:
> > I wonder if you've ever read Calvin & Hobbes? Now, *that*'s a comic I
> > would definitely describe as 'real quality'. And as for Donald Duck: you
> > know as well as I do that there are many Duck stories of 'very poor
>quality'
> > out there. (Without suggesting, of course, that your beloved Don Rosa
> > calendar might be of 'inferior quality'. I haven't seen it.)
> >
> > Is it possible to define 'quality', or is it just personal?
> > (I think it must be possible to define it, but I wouldn't know how.)
>
>Calvin & Hobbes comes about as close to "objective" quality as it's possible
>to come. It has the unique distinction of having won two Reuben Awards in
>its first three years, and is almost as popular in reruns as it was when it
>was first coming out -- and that's VERY popular.
>
>For that matter, I'm a big fan of Ernie, too, and Beetle Bailey often gets a
>laugh out of me as well -- certainly, its average quality is at least on a
>level with that of Donald Duck, considering how many different hands have
>gone into producing both over the years. I've never seen Pondus, but from
>the company it's in here, I suspect I'd probably like it.
>
>Quack, Don
>
>Today in Toons: Every day's an anniversary.
>http://www.toonopedia.com/today.htm
>
>_______________________________________________
>http://stp.ling.uu.se/mailman/listinfo/dcml

No doubt the good old drawing pen is superior, but would-be cartoonists
should not be discouraged if they find it difficult to use a pen. It is
possible to cheat. Even Frank Cho of Liberty Meadows admits that he uses
felt-tipped pens.

I draw a comic strip for a local newspaper, and this is how I do it:

1) First I type the text on my PC, using a comic book font. I have a
template with panel borders that I type the words into.

2) I print out a sheet with the panel borders and text and put them on my
light box. Then I put a blank piece of paper on top.

3) Then i pencil, using a blue pencil to block out the layout and a black
pencil for details.

4) Then I switch the sheets around so that the template with borders and
text are now on top. Then I ink using a Pilot Fineliner felt-tipped pen.
The good thing about this pen is that you can vary the line thicknes by
varying the pressure. For really fine lines i "ink" with a hard pencil (4H)
sharpened to a fine point.

5) Finally, I scan the whole thing and use my PC to add blacks and greys
(and correct any mistakes). Before I send the strip off to the paper, I
reduce it to the size and resolution that they use - to make it easy for them.

... and my 26.000 readers will never suspect that I don't use professional
tools (unless they are on this list).

Nils From Norway

"Donald D. Markstein" wrote:

> Calvin & Hobbes comes about as close to "objective"
> quality as it's possible to come. It has the unique
> distinction of having won two Reuben Awards in its
> first three years, and is almost as popular in reruns
> as it was when it was first coming out -- and that's
> VERY popular.

Off course it is popular. That is (I think) because it
is seen as "correct" by many young people who often are
more or less unfamiliar with the high quality comics
traditions from the 1930's, 1940's, 1950's, 1960's and
the early 1970's. I have even heard such "correct"
people say that "Bah! Donald Duck is just for kids".

> For that matter, I'm a big fan of Ernie, too, and
> Beetle Bailey often gets a laugh out of me as well...

Exactly!!! These comics seems to be about one thing
- humor. Unfortunately some people seems to believe
that short humor gags is all that comics should be
concerned about.

Well, I am different, I prefer long comics stories
with an intelligent plot. So I very seldom read
modern humor gags comics.

Sigvald :-)