Keskustelujen arkisto

Sigvald:

> > That indicates that Heymans does Don Rosa like
> > art - dosen't it?
> >
> > If you mean "Heymans does like Don Rosa art",
> > then the answer is: no, definitely not.
>
> No, I ment exactly what I wrote.

If you make less typos and spelling mistakes, it becomes more clear what you
meant.
("Rosa like" should at least be "Rosa-like" to make sense out of your
sentence.)

> Anyway do yo know if the Heymans art is in the
> Dutch version only or even in the standard
> version?

There is only one printed version. The story has the same printed artwork
*everywhere*.

When you look at the story, the Heymans Ducks are clearly different from the
rest (even when they were inked by Rosa).

Don:

> Why would you think that the only version that exists of this
> story is what was printed in a Dutch comic?
> I have the only original version of that
> story, and it's 100% MY art. No touch-ups by anyone.

You once explained to us that Heymans sketched the Ducks on page 1, plus two
heads elsewhere in the story. Then you simply inked his sketches.
Are you saying that there's a different *inked* version of this story ("On a
Silver Platter")?
If that is so, then that version may be regarded "original", but since it's
not printed anywhere, you can hardly call it a "standard" version.

--Harry.

Hey guys,

I'm witnessing some unintended confusion going on in this discussion
of Don Rosa's "On a Silver Platter". Let me try to clarify a few things.

SIGVALD:
Mau Heymans' involvement with this story came at the *pencil* stage.
To paraphrase Jakob Soderbaum's website: the Dutch editors had Mau Heymans
draw (or redraw?) a lot of the pencil art to Page 1, to show Don the kind of
art style they wanted. Don then inked Heymans' pencils.
Sigvald, you seem to believe that Heymans made changes to the
finished inks. He didn't.
After Don completed the ink art, the Dutch *editors* may have made
minor alterations (as Don called them, "touch-ups") to the pictures or voice
balloons on a photostat COPY of the story. These photostats then became the
"official Dutch version"- in other words, the version that the Dutch put
into print and send out to other publishers who want to order the story from
them.

DON:
You said yesterday that "perhaps those photostats... [are] no longer
in existence." Jumpin' jacksnipes! Where'd you hear this?
Just so you know, various copies of the Dutch photostats do still
exist. One set (which I've personally held in my own hands) is in the Egmont
archives, functioning as our own printing materials on the story. Another
set is still in Holland, acting as the master copy from which the Dutch make
new copies for other publishers.

David

H.W.Fluks at telecom.tno.nl wrote:

>>Stefan Persson dislikes the tale in no uncertain terms.
>>
>>
>Maybe the latter is *because of* the things I quoted above? 8-)
>
I believe it is. :-)

Stefan

Simo:

> And even more, some certain factors are making Mau Heymans' stories
> different from each others by their drawing-style:
>
> At first numerous of different people have inked his stories. (Peter
> Colle, Jaap Stavenuiter, Bas Heymans, Frans Leenheer, the Comicup
> studios and of course Mau Heymans himself)

I think this is a minor difference. For all inkers, Mau always has had the
supervision of the end product. And he sometimes corrects details in other
people's inking.

> I do think Mau Heymans' drawing-style has
> developed during the years.

Sure.

> I'm truly disappointed the level of
> artwork by his most recent stories. No more unsymmetrical panels (for
> many years actually)

One reason for that could be the editors: they demand that artwork is made
*without* text balloons!
The text balloons are added by computer (with disasterous results,
sometimes!).
I can imagine that the computer software can only add text balloons if the
panel borders are exactly horizontal and vertical.
This is one example where computerisation is *not* an improvement.

> but so much less efforts to draw characters
> vigorously. He's art has become somekind routine work.

In the more recent years, Mau is less interested doing the drawings when he
didn't (co-)write the story. And even when he does: he now also writes
stories that are drawn by others!

> http://www.geocities.com/gearlost/heymans.html

Interesting. I hadn't noticed that difference before.

--Harry.

>Have Carl ever talked about his opinion about the DuckTales series and
>movie?

Ankkalinnan Pamaus, fanzine of mine, printed article about Disney-animations
written by Sauli Pesonen. There is a quote from private letter from Barks to
writer of the article. It goes (quoted directly from original source):

"The adaptations of some of my comic book stories into DuckTales animated
cartoons could have been done better if the studio had
not felt they needed to pad my plots with non-stop pratfalls, plane crashes,
fist fights, floods, cataclysms, and nail-biting
suspense. After 15 minutes of such high-speed violence, viewers forget what
the stories are about, and even lose track of where the
characters are."
Dated September 8th 1992.

Timo

^^''*''^^
Cartoonist - writer - donaldist -
Timo Ronkainen ---------------- -
YO-kylä 52 A 26 --------------- -
20540 Turku ------------------- -
Finland ----------------------- -
timoro at hotmail.com
timoro at sunpoint.net
¨¨ Personal:
http://www.geocities.com/timoro2/
¨¨ Ankkalinnan Pamaus:
http://www.perunamaa.net/ankistit/
.................................
"Rumble on, buxom bumble bee!
Go sit on cowslip - far from me!"

_________________________________________________________________
STOP MORE SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE*
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail

From: Gerstein, David DK - ECN (DGE at ECN.egmont.com)
>>> DON:
You said yesterday that "perhaps those photostats... [are] no longer
in existence." Jumpin' jacksnipes! Where'd you hear this?

No, no, you missed my point. It was stated that the "only version in
existence" of this story was one that was seen in a Dutch comic. I was
showing how it would be silly for me to assume that the version *I* had was
the "only version in existence" just because it's the only one that I've
seen sitting on the floor in my studio.
And I have sometimes sent copies of the art and script for one of my stories
to a publisher who wants it when they can't get copies from the original
publisher fast enough, or the original publisher sends them the wrong
version. I don't recall if I've ever sent copies of this particular story to
a publisher, but it IS a possibility; therefore there MIGHT be a different
version in publication than the one seen in Holland.
Another example: for years I would send my stories to Egmont THROUGH
Gladstone -- that way Gladstone would be able to get perfect copies and not
hafta rely on Egmont's photostats (which were not always so good). And
Egmont might make changes to the photostats for their own purposes...
removing signage, changing details in the art, etc. Therefore, you cannot
assume that the "standard" (meaning Egmont-published?) version of an Egmont
story is even the only version in print, much less the "only version in
existence". Meanwhile, Gladstone might have made changes to their photostats
after some meddling by Disney, meaning there are at least 3 versions of the
story, including my original. Then each and every non-Egmont publisher can
make their own changes to a story when they get their photostats, creating
even more versions. Then.....
Yes! I'm trying to show you how confusing and complicated this system is!
The point being that nobody, not even me, knows how many versions of one of
my stories exists.

KAI SAATRO to SIMO MAILINEN, 27-01-2003

>> http://www.geocities.com/gearlost/heymans.html

[...]

> I must agree with you, Simo. Latest Mau Heyman should have never seen
> print in my humble opinion (the story in right). You can see there is
> no love involved in his work. Even if the script is good, this kind of
> artwork makes it look bad.

You only see art that you dislike.
By just looking at the art, you cannot know what the artist's feelings
were when drawing it.

Anyway, I think that in general, all artists tend to make more
routine-looking work after some time. A reason could be that the work
*has* become more of a routine. They may not need to sketch and
experimate as much as in the beginning of their career.

Or maybe artists consciously/unconsciously stick to a certain style
after a period with lots of style-practicing.
A result may be a less exciting, more mature-looking style.
(Maybe one might say that the wild/unsteady apprentice has grown
and become a skilled master himself?)

These reasons have nothing to do with love, or lack of it.
Again, I think it's wrong to fill in such feelings so easily.

Wrongly being accused for having no love for your own work, is very
painful. (Even if the work would indeed be bad.)

Best wishes,

--- Dani?l

I agree one hundred percent with Daniel. After an artist draws (and writes)
for the same character after several years, the spontaneity, freshness, variety
of their work may suffer to some extent. I've seen evidence of this in the
work of most artists (including myself). And, that includes musicians, all
other forms of art and just about any endevour in life. That does NOT mean the
artist has less enthusiasm for the work, (although that can sometimes be a
contributor). It surely occurs, at least in part, because the artist has
developed a regular "system" of working, or style which slips into "automatic
pilot". He can work more efficiantly, often on a more-demanding work schedule
than he had when he was new to the field (trying to break into the business).
He is often less willing, at this later point in his career, to spend "extra"
time, making sure EVERYTHING in the story is "PERFECT". There is often less
experimentation. The artist may not even be conscious of this change in work
methods. There is an "instinct" developed, for what works best in each
situation, which is then used subconsciously. This tends, over time, to result
in less "analysis" for each decision, and thus, leads to less variety. The
great artists often make up for this normal spontaneity loss, by the increase
in some of their craft's skills which have been honed by the practise of their
work, and increase in knowledge, gained through experience. This is paralleled
by the aging hockey player, who has more and more aches and pains to play each
game, and cannot skate nearly as fast as when he was young, but is yet a very
effective player because he knows better the tendencies of opponents, and where
to position himself.

To my taste, both Barks' and Gottfredson's works lost freshness and spontaneity
in their later years, but still remained at an acceptable level (if not as well-
loved as their earleir and classic period works) because of experience. In
addition, after several years, the artist/writer has less "new stories to tell"
(even an artist who only draws other people's stories, has less new "visual
stories" to tell). Barks was scraping the bottom of the barrel, to come up with
new story ideas. he had lost some enthusiasm for telling his stories. I
believe the same was true for Gottfredson, as he recycled similar themes
several times.

I agree that Freddy Milton's work is not as fresh as it was when he and Daan
Jippes were spending inordinate amounts of time to make the "perfect" Donald
Duck stories. Neither of them can afford (careerwise) to spend such time on
stories now. After emulating Barks'style when starting out, Freddy eventually
slid into his own style (which I believe, personally, was greatfully influenced
by the many hours he spent drawing Woody Woodpecker for SEMIC). Naturally, he
developed regular ways of drawing similar actions and scenes. This results in
an unconscious and undesired loss of variety and freshness. I can think of
VERY FEW artists who worked on one character or "universe" for over 10 years,
who didn't suffer such an effect on his/her work (e.g. a "fresh" beginning
period; soon after, a classical period; and late in career, a declining period
(at least, in terms of freshness and spontaneity)).

Rob
Klein

---------------------------------------------
This message was sent using the LA Free-Net - LA's best kept secret.
http://www.lafn.org/