Keskustelujen arkisto

The program that handles this list is called Mailman. I have now
updated the version to 2.1.1 (from 2.0).

You don't have to do anything special because of this, but I thought I
should tell you all this anyway. There are several new features in
the web interface -- the most asked for is probably a way to change
your subscription address directly. (Earlier you had to unsubscribe
your old address and subscribe your new address as separate actions.)

The web interface is at <http://stp.ling.uu.se/mailman/listinfo/dcml>
as usual.

--
Per Starb?ck <starback at ling.uu.se>
"Life is but a gamble! Let flipism chart your ramble!"

Quick question to the individual who has been posting the old Mickey Mouse Daily Strips (I apologize for forgetting your name)....

I noticed that today's strip says "By Iwerks" as most have, but a few before this last one said "By Walter Disney"

I am just curious as to why this happened....the art seemed the same to me, so why would Ub's name have been dropped?

Anyway, I'm really enjoying the strips each day and must say that I never realized that after the few airplane strips that Mickey spent so much time on an island. It seems most strange b/c there isn't much development of the character, but instead he just simply jumps into some escapades. Any thoughts on why this would be....? Do we already know alot about Mickey through other media by the time of the strips?

Well, hi to all and thanks for the great discussions we've been having.

Later,
John Crocker.

In a message dated 3/12/2003 9:04:03 AM Eastern Standard Time,
John.Crocker at dvn.com writes:

> Anyway, I'm really enjoying the strips each day and must say that I never
> realized that after the few airplane strips that Mickey spent so much time
> on an island. It seems most strange b/c there isn't much development of
> the character, but instead he just simply jumps into some escapades. Any
> thoughts on why this would be....? Do we already know alot about Mickey
> through other media by the time of the strips?

Well, I never really thought that Mickey HAD much character to begin with.
Any medium that involves him--the cartoons, the comics, what have you--seem
to be more focused on the plots, as opposed to the developing of the actual
character. I think the Duck books are far from this, which is one of the many
reasons for their appeal. (Still, I really enjoy some of the older Mickey
strips.)

I wouldn't blame it on a specific writer or artist; it's really just the way
the Mickey "universe" (I hate that term) is. Unless someone comes along and
dramatically changes Mickey's character, which I really can't see happening,
I think we're kind of "stuck" in this plot-driven Mickey "universe."
--
Thanks for reading this nonsense,

Dane Martin

Dane Martin wrote:

> > *) I don't remember "Panicking Pachyderm" but based on the
> > description it sounds like one of those not-so-good Mickey stories.
> >
>
> Right. In fact, when I read it, I thought, "you have to be joking." I
> think Mickey is such a black-and-white (literally!), one-dimensional
> character that it's difficult to make proper story-lines that make an
> amusing story.

In my opinion: Nope. Mickey Mouse is a great, great character - when
written the right way. Courageous, adventurous, compassionate, witty,
but very flawed and human. Knows he should really grow up, but his
impulsiveness works against it; he loves every minute whenever the
opportunity for excitement comes along.

> Floyd
> Gottfredson succeeded with Mickey, but he's really the only Mickey
> comic-artist that I've ever really appreciated.

Maybe you haven't seen any of the Mickey stories Egmont currently is
producing for the weekly over here. Great stuff, basically founded on
Floyd Gottfredson's work, with an emotional Mickey just like his. My
advice to you is to buy as many Gemstone comics as you can, in the hope
that some of these stories will be used.

Lars

Hi everyone!

John:
>>> Quick question to the individual who has been posting the old Mickey Mouse Daily Strips (I
apologize for
>>forgetting your name)....

Seems to be me. :D
No problem. Olivier's the name.

My turn to apologize, to everyone: I have not been able to add more notes. I had a couple of things
to say, but couldn't do it in time, then thought I'd collect them, procrastinated, didn't have time
or forgot, ... All that because I unfortunately haven't been able to do the scanning (and at least
part of the writing) long enough in advance.
I wanted to do some notes in time for the beginning of the birds episode this week-- and again
missed the date. I'm very sorry-- not that you're missing much, anyway, it's just my humble notes on
the strips, nothing more.
Another factor probably is that I meant to include a couple of DVD captures (of "Plane Crazy"),
but haven' done them-- I even seem to have somehow "misplaced" the ones I had.
Anyway, I will try to do something very soon.

>>>> I noticed that today's strip says "By Iwerks" as most have, but a few before this last one said
"By Walter
>>>Disney"
>>> I am just curious as to why this happened....the art seemed the same to me, so why would Ub's
name have
>>>been dropped?

You'll find the full credits for the strips (copied from Another Rainbow's Mickey Mouse book) on my
site:
http://ob7.free.fr/mice_and_ducks/
( I can't link to the exact page because I use frames; click on the Mickey icon in the (left,
yellow) Contents frame; the "MM Dailies" contents page appears in the lower (left, gray) frame;
"List" will display the credits in the main (top right, green) frame. )
I seem to have made a mistake when I copied these credits. The book says Ub pencilled from Jan 13
through to Feb 8 (whereas I typed April 1 for Win Smith's pencilling).
And according to "The Hand Behind the Mouse":
"Because of these demands on his time, Ub merely roughed out the art for the first eighteen strips.
Win Smith, who Ub described as 'quite good with a pen', did the inking. [...] Even though he passed
ther strip on to Win Smith, who later relinquished it to Floyd Gottfredson, Ub Iwerks would receive
credits in a byline that would continue to run for almost a year. The byline read 'By Walt Disney
and Ub IWerks'".
This would make it January 13 - February 1 (which might correspond to my "April 1" mistake).

The byline credits really keep randomly alternating between Walt & Ub on the strips I have. the last
appearance of "Walter" is on June 23; the next Disney credit, on July 7, reads "Walt".
The odd thing is that Disney had been signing "Walt" for several years, and the "Disney Brothers
Studio" had already been rebaptized "Walt Disney Studio" by the time the strips started.

I don't know where the person (sorry, i froget the name, too) who collected these strips got them,
ie whether there may have been different sources of some strips, which might account for such
changes, but I don't think that's the explanation.
Similarly, these credits used to be framed, then the frame was dropped out; the title eventually
disappeared as well-- I can't say when though (sorry, I don't feel like thumbing through all those
hundreds of pages right now). I don't know why. Maybe sometimes they just rushed the job somehow,
ommitting the frame and the title.
The irregularity of the panels' frame (the shaky lines, I mean) is striking too, but again, I can't
say for sure whether it's just because of the reproduction or whether the lines were really no
straight. Maybe David can illuminate us on this.

>>>> Anyway, I'm really enjoying the strips each day

Thanks! I'm happy to see the counter everyday-- it's a non-profit thing, as you can see; I'm just
happy to see I'm not the only one reading them!

>>>and must say that I never realized that after the few airplane strips that Mickey spent so much
time on an
>>>island.

How I wish they had included this cartoon on the DVD! I have never seen it, and haven't found any
pictures of it. Not even in Pierre Lambert's gorgeous "Mickey" book!

>>>>It seems most strange b/c there isn't much development of the character, but instead he just
simply jumps into
>>>>some escapades. Any thoughts on why this would be....?

Sorry, I don't know. That's part of the notes I have to add. I guess they just didn't exactly know
what to do with a strip. Just like Barks & Hannah's "Pirate Gold", it reads like a storyboard
sequence-- a string of gags with minimal dialogue; puns & slapstick humor.

>>>>Do we already know alot about Mickey through other media by the time of the strips?

"Steamboat Willie" premiered on November 18, 1928.
The strip started on January 13, 1930.
13 shorts were released in the meantime (8 of which are featured on the DVD if I'm not mistaken);
mostly musicals (sound was still "new").
Mickey is but a nice, mischievous little character; the oddest thing is playing it rough (drinking &
smoking) at the beginning of "Galloping Gaucho").
Sorry, I'm getting too tired to expand upon this now.

Dane:
>>>>I wouldn't blame it on a specific writer or artist; it's really just the way the Mickey
"universe" (I hate that term)
>>>>is. Unless someone comes along and dramatically changes Mickey's character, which I really can't
see
>>>>happening, I think we're kind of "stuck" in this plot-driven Mickey "universe."

Everyone soon got painted into a corner. Mickey started as a nice little fellow and was an immediate
success; they had to keep true to this image which so quickly became iconic. Hence the development &
success of Goofy & Donald. I must have a quote to that effect somewhere-- willl try and find it;
well, will try and think of trying to find it, in the first place.
The major thing was developing true continuities.
The Gottfredson years were obviously the very best-- though such artists / writers as Paul Murry &
Dick Moores did some very nice things; I like the style of Caesar Ferioli.
And I have a particular fondness for Bill Walsh's stories-- he came up with such crazy characters &
ideas, and Gottfredson's style evolved in such a way that perfectly matched the mood.

One of the big things about the Gottfredson strips is they're very refreshing-- especially such
stories as "The Seven ghosts", but even simple ones like"Oscar the Ostrich", "Tanglefoot"... :
they're simple plot-wise & character-wise, but there not "empty"; there's an "innocence" to them
that highly enjoyable; nice pictures of a nice, pleasant universe (despite the crooks).
I feel the same about Gottfredson's paintings: they don't have the complexity of Barks'
compositions, shading, textures, ...; they're fairly naive, in fact, a bit "childish" even; this
simplicity is very refreshing.

0:10. Not realy that late, but I'm getting tired. All my apologies for the typos I must have
overlooked (and those I keep overlooking in all my posts).

Best wishes,

Olivier

Our local TV-channels have had plenty of American "TV-mini-series"
just by recent times. By that "mini-series" I mean TV-series that
were made only few episodes before the whole productions were
cancelled because of too low audience rates.

E.g. Chris Carter's (X-Files) other series "Harsh Realm" and
"Lone Gunmen" were trashed just after couple of episodes. Even
loudly started "Dark Angel" (Terminator-Cameron-Production)
apparently was wasted on it's second season. And so on.

But how's this related to Disney comics? Since the Disney-comics
are now returning to the U.S. I'm just wondering what if the
organizers and financiers of this publishing project have as
much patience as their TV-colleagues? Could/would they execute
similar acts? What if the new comic books aren't an immediate
success and the selling rates aren't moon rocketing all the time?

>http://scoop.diamondgalleries.com/scoop_article.asp?ai=2011&si=121
>

>http://scoop.diamondgalleries.com/scoop_article.asp?ai=2083&si=121
>

And are they really seriously going to lure new readers with
these covers? The cover of new WDC&S 634 featuring the book's
best known characters wearing totally unrecognizible costumes?
Quite innovative! (or actually that was rather common with some
oldest WDC&S issues)

On the other hand the cover of DD Adventures feels sort of minimalistic -
though I'm NOT an expert of marketing and I have
absolutely no idea how the potential comic book buyers/readers
in the U.S. would react about this cover (especially the ones
not being familiar with the characters). "So that book is
featuring a beak-creature exploring adventeres with a tiny
spider. How cute!", "Crappy bird dude tied up his beak! Yuh!",
"Donald Duck? ... umm ... McDonald's! - It's time to get the
best meal in the whole good damn world!" ..

Or maybe it's just me expected some Barks' consciousness-expanding
gag-covers from the 50's?

http://eega.net/covers/usa/w_wdc/w_wdc_167_00.jpg

- Simo

_________________________________________________________________
Tired of spam? Get advanced junk mail protection with MSN 8.
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail

Stefan wrote:

> > By the way what about Don...
>
> That name is usually a nickname for someone called Donald, I think.

Usually. But in the case of Don Rosa, Don is short for "Dante" (like Keno is "Gioacchino").

--Harry.

In a message dated 3/13/2003 2:11:17 PM Eastern Standard Time,
deanmary at worldnet.att.net writes:

>I think if the artwork is presented
>in a size bigger than standard comic book size (ala album format) the
>detailed art looks too big to me and I don't appreciate it as much as
>when it is in a smaller size.

Really? I think that comic book art--ANY comic book art--just generally looks
better the bigger it gets. The idea of extremely large panels and backgrounds
just really appeals to me, especially in Barks' style, since it was always so
incredibly obvious as to where the Ducks WERE.

He put incredible detail into the SURROUNDINGS of the Ducks. Not necessairly
the backgrounds themselves, but the entire "community" surrounding the Ducks.
That especially fits well for a large-sized book--i.e., the album format.

>Of course I agree that size can hurt the
>enjoyment of detailed artwork as well. I don't think Don Rosa's >artwork
>would look at all right in a digest the size of the current Archie
>digests.

Agreed. I really don't like that size at all, unless the artist has a
particularly clean style, and the lettering is readable. A perfect example of
"pocket books" done RIGHT would be the Astro Boy trade paperback series Dark
Horse is doing. It doesn't pain me to read comic book stories in that format
when it comes to Astro Boy, particularly to the clean style Hayao Miyazaki
uses.

>I think the "take along" format overall will be OK though.
>One, it is kind of a compromise between the size of a "regular" comic
>book and the size of Archie digests (or for the matter this size of
>Gladstone I digests).

Right. I like the fact that it's a bit bigger than the Archie digests, simply
for the sake of readability. And they're sure to stand out a bit more, also,
if they're placed in the same grocery lines. (It especially helps that the
Disney characters are much more recognizable to the children of today!)

>Two, I don't think Gemstone is planning on
>putting stories in these that have very detailed art. I imagine they
>will save those for the regular size comics and (hopefully) for TPB's

Hopefully. I haven't seen any art of the stories appearing in the premiere
issue; does anyone know if it's particularly detailed?

>Another reason I am not a huge fan of the album format is they to me
>at least seem awkward and unwieldy to read. Of course perhaps a lot >of
this comes down to being used to the regular comic size so much >that that is
just what I am most naturally comfortable with.

I read a lot of comic books as well, but frankly, the transition doesn't
bother me at all. I really like the large size, and they stack well on a
bookshelf.

>If I have a choice between buying 12 monthly issues or 2
>TPB's a year containing 6 issues each, I would prefer to just have the >2
TPB's.

I'm just the opposite. I just like the concept of a "pamphlet" that I can
pick up every few months. It's less intelligence financially, but I just
enjoy that format more.

>That indeed is what I do with a couple of Marvel titles that
>have TPB's printed very shortly after the individual comics are out.

The only Marvel book I read is The Fantastic Four--do they regularly put out
TPB reprints of the issues? I like the book, but I've been thinking of
switching to TPBs if they do exist...

Sure, I like the "pamphlet" format more, but I'm a casual FF reader.

>Why so many comic book companies
>seem to think every story has to be a multiple issue storyline I guess
>is a complaint for another mailing list! :)

This works OCCASIONALLY, but it's unfortunate that most comics now have to do
this constantly--almost always. What's worse is that the story-lines spread
out through multiple books. Sure, this increases the complexity of
story-lines, but it just doesn't work.

This world needs more one-shot comics.
--
Thanks for reading this nonsense,

Dane Martin