Keskustelujen arkisto

Arie wrote (on May 7):

> There're basic
> guides by various Disney Comics publisher in Europe that
> Fethry exists or
> not, and such just like recently discussed, Ludwig von Drake.
>
> So what i want to know is who and why these characters and
> perhaps many
> others are set to be "non-existant" in duck world. It couldnt be the
> "politically correct"?

I can only say something about the Dutch situation: around 1974
they decided that Fethry and Ludwig are not to be used anymore.
(This also goes for e.g. Hustler, Hard Haid Moe, and Belle Duck,
but they were scarcely used anyway.)
After that, they only appeared in the pocket books (the stories
for the Dutch pocket books are chosen by Egmont, not by the Dutch).

Reason for abandoning Fethry: the character looked more like
yet-another-Donald, especially in the stories where they work
together for a newspaper.
In other words, Fethry was not distinguishable enough.

Reason for abandoning Ludwig: he looked too much like Gyro.
(In later reprints of Ludwig stories, the character was replaced
with Gyro or Donald.)
In other words, Ludwig was not distinguishable enough.

Instead of these two characters, the Dutch (re-)introduced
other characters like Joe Carioca, Panchito, and Bucky Bug.

> and when one or more Disney comic artists drew new
> characters and
> start using the new chars as part of their own duck world
> (like Oona and
> Rufus). do the characters actually get some kind of
> "reviews/judgements" by
> the publisher in order to decide whether or not the new chars
> can be used by the artists again?

Usually, the *editors* decide to introduce a new character in
the first place.
In Holland, they decided to give April, May, and June a new
look, and introduce new characters in the (school) world of
AMJ and HDL. I'm sure this new step was evaluated after some
time. But I don't know if they actually asked the readers,
or only used their personal taste.
(Anyway, AMJ still have their new look, but the school teacher
and the new school characters will not be used anymore.)

--Harry.

> Has Svinesson ever appeared in any story (apart from those "Svinesson"
> pages in the weekly)?

If I'm not COMPLETELY wrong, the character "Svinesen" is taken from that old
WDC story by Carl Barks where Donald and Gladstone are playing golf, Donald
is winning - and a sneaky journalist follows them around to give an award to
the unluckiest golf player. That journalist was him.

That was may not the entire CHARACTER Svinesen, but it was a character with
his exact looks, and that is the story where all the illustrations for
"Svinesen" are picked from. But, keep in mind, that is if I'm not COMPLETELY
wrong.

Olaf

Donald D. Markstein <ddmarkstein at cox.net> wrote:

> If more people did that, maybe we could get
> past the incorrect notion that comics are just
> for children.

I don't get this - you are not much familiar with the Disney weeklies in
Scandinavia or in Germany, are you?

The truth is that the Scandinavian and German weeklies are regarded
childish, because that's ecsactly what Egmont wants.

Why do you think that HD&L are drawn like "dipshits" on the covers of the
German Mickey Moyse Magazine - if not to be sold to young kids?

Why do you think that "childish toys" are included with the Scandinavian
weeklies - if not to be sold to young kids?

Why do you think that those stupid "Svinesen" pages are included with the
Scandinavian weeklies - if not to be sold to kids?

If you want a Disney magazine for grown up people it should look like old
Picsou Magazine and feature stories by artists like Barks, Rosa, Murry,
Gottredson, Rota, Scarpa, Van Horn along with some local and young creators
like Olaf Solstrand, Lars Jensen, etc. Instead of kids-stuff the magazine
should instead feature interesting readers letters and well qualified stuff
about Disney creators, characters, etc.

So my conclusion is that as long as a magazine are made to be sold to kids -
it's probably fair to believe that it's just kids stuff.

Sigvald

Don:
> As I've said many times, the comic book doesn't make
> me look bad. I make the comic book look good.

That sure is an excellent saying. I may quote you on that.

Sigvald:
> The truth is that the Scandinavian and German weeklies
> are regarded childish, because that's ecsactly what Egmont
> wants.

And what about other countries? I guess this problem is largest in the
United states?

> Why do you think that HD&L are drawn like "dipshits" on
> the covers of the German Mickey Moyse Magazine - if not
> to be sold to young kids?
>
> Why do you think that "childish toys" are included with the
> Scandinavian weeklies - if not to be sold to young kids?
>
> Why do you think that those stupid "Svinesen" pages are
> included with the Scandinavian weeklies - if not to be sold
> to kids?

Just a comment:
YES, Disney comics are for kids. YES, kids buy Disney comics. And so? IMHO,
Disney comics being made for kids is a GOOD thing! OK, Scandinavians and
Germans may have a "problem" - if it's a problem that the magazine contains
several pages of "Svinesen" and other things meant for those YEARS younger
than us, that we are forced into buying a cheap toy that's going straight
for the garbage bin anyway and that our covers show Huey, Dewey and Louie
wearing caps. But I feel that Americans have a bigger problem than us:
Americans make albums almost nobody buys. In Norway, a small Nordic country
with 4,5 million inhabitants, 140 000 copies of "Donald Duck & Co" are sold
EVERY WEEK - plus we have Donald Pocket, Mikke Mus M?nedshefte, Skrue
Pocket, Fantonald and maybe some other publications I have forgot. The
United States of America have 280 million inhabitants, and if I remember
right, Gladstone's albums sold 20.000 copies every month (of which 10.000
went sealed straight into a bank box to stay in mint condition). For adults,
these albums may be better than the Norwegian weekly - but I don't care. Not
when Egmont has managed to make a magazine that is bought and loved by kids.
For even though kids may buy their first magazines because of the toys or
the funny pages or the dipshits on the cover, they keep on buying it for
decades because of the stories. Which is why you and me and many others here
still buy the weekly.

I don't see a problem in the fact that Egmont is marketing their magazines
for kids. Should they make a magazine that you and I are willing to buy?
Nah, why would they do that - they already HAVE such a magazine. I buy the
DD weekly every week, and as far as I know so do you. So why would Egmont
make a magazine that we would buy? They KNOW that we devoted donaldists are
already buying the magazine that exists today! Aren't 50% of all the
subscribers over 18 years old? The weekly has in my opinion almost
everything we donaldists could ask for - lots and lots of great comics, and
sometimes good articles too. OK, there could be more of that - but from a
marketer's point of view, that would be useless as we're already buying the
weekly. What Donald Duck & Co really needs, is something that can make KIDS
and CHILDREN buy the magazine. Why? Because these kids have never been
introduced to the wonderful world of Carl Barks, and therefor have NO
reasons to buy the magazine. OK, so you and I may don't need those toys
much, but if DD&Co didn't have them, lots of children would prefer a
magazine who DOES (like Tom & Jerry), and these children would never meet
the great stories we grew up with and therefor never even have a CHANCE
becoming donaldists. Sure, it would be great to have what you call well
qualified stuff... but we don't really need it, do we? IMO, it's more
important that NEW generations get a chance to enjoy the Disney comics. As I
said - they may buy it for the toys, but they KEEP buying it for the comics.
Remove the toys, and they won't buy it in the first place, and therefor not
even KNOW that they should buy it for the comics.

Another problem is of course, as Don said;
> > If more people did that, maybe we could get
> > past the incorrect notion that comics are just
> > for children.
Of course I agree to this. I think that Disney comics should/could be for
kids, YES. But not JUST for kids, which is nothing but prejudice. Disney
comics fits EVERYBODY.

> If you want a Disney magazine for grown up people it should look like old
> Picsou Magazine and feature stories by artists like Barks, Rosa, Murry,
> Gottredson, Rota, Scarpa, Van Horn

...you mention a list of writers and artists here, but what about all other
writers and artists? Are you saying that the stories of todays weeklies, by
great talents like Vicar, Branca, Transgaartd, Gerstein, Hedman, McGreal,
McGreal, Gilbert, Korhonen, Laban and several others are rubbish? I find
all - or almost all - stories in the weeklies today GREAT. I don't really
care if a story is not written by Rosa, Rota, Scarpa or Barks - it's often a
GREAT story anyway. Donald Duck & Co most certainly features stories by
artists like Barks, Rosa, Murry, Gottfredson, Rota, Scarpa and Van Horn -
note the "like". As long as the weekly keep the quality it has today, I
certainly see no reason to complain about the comics - even though not
every story is written by who you refer to as the elite.

> along with some local and young creators
> like Olaf Solstrand, Lars Jensen, etc.

Just a note: Can you PLEASE stop referring to me as one of the greatest
creators Scandinavia has ever seen? Just so you know: I'm not. You haven't
even READ my comics - and yet you keep on telling how Egmont shouldplace me
on a pedestal, publish books with my stories, that Gemstone should print my
stories and so on. Please have in mind that I'm NOT a new Don Rosa - but if
that is what you keep telling everybody, that is what everybody will expect,
and then I will not be able to fill their expectation, thus I'm doomed to
retire from Disney comics very early as I never will be able to manage to
fill the demands of people reading my stories expecting me to write better
stories than Barks and Rosa alltogether.

> Instead of kids-stuff the magazine
> should instead feature interesting
> readers letters and well qualified stuff
> about Disney creators, characters, etc.
>

Agreed, with one minor change - I want "well qualified stuff" ALONGSIDE
"kids-stuff" - not "instead of".

> So my conclusion is that as long as a magazine are made to be sold to
kids -
> it's probably fair to believe that it's just kids stuff.

For a shopkeeper that didn't grow up with Disney comics himself, indeed.
That is why we should make comics that will be read by ALL future shop
keepers - including those who want the magazine only for the toy or the
"Svinesen" pages. If they learn to grow up with Disney comics, they will
sure understand that Disney Comics are NOT kids stuff.

Olaf the Blue
-. --- -... --- -.. -.-- . -..- .--. . -.-. - ... - .... . ... .--. .- -. ..
... .... .. -. --.- ..- .. ... .. - .. --- -.

I suppose I should have expected this. I mention a practice of my own which,
if it became widespread, might raise the public's awareness that comic books
can be enjoyed by all ages (i.e., unabashedly acknowledging my own enjoyment
of them in public)...

And Sigvald responds with irrelevancies (the alleged "fact" that ONE comic
book is "only" for children doesn't alter what I've said about comics in
general) and inanities (words like "stupid", "dipshits" and similar epithets
that serve only to alienate and annoy).

FYI, Sigvald, I DO see the Egmont comics every week -- not just in Danish,
but also in my own language. And I find them quite suitable for all ages,
including my own.

What's more, I like what you call the "childish toys" that often come with
them. Several are now on shelves in my office, along with the other duck
toys, figurines, pictures, etc. that brighten my work area. In fact, the
recent little plastic duckbill, where you squeeze the back and a tongue
rolls out, had me and my wife both in stitches.

It's true that my grandson likes the toys too, but I, for one, decline to
scorn things just because they appeal to his age group.

I might add that I've been a fan of Carl Barks, whom you cite as a creator
worthy of an adult's attention, since I was five years old. In fact, ALL of
the cartoonists you cite -- Barks, Rosa, Murry, Gottredson, Rota, Scarpa,
Van Horn etc. -- wrote and drew to be understood and enjoyed by children as
well as by people their own age. It isn't just Egmont, conspiring with the
likes of me (as one of their writers) to make their comics too childish for
you -- ALL successful creators of Disney comics do it.

If you consider this beneath you, I suggest that instead of frothing over it
as you did in the post I'm responding to (which *I* consider childish), you
find more suitable reading matter.

Quack, Don

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

yes, sure. Comics are for children. They works like mules for have money to
pay the new and old Gemstone editions, the Picsou magazine, Marvel and DC
comics, any thing from Alan Moore, Grant Morrison and Warren Ellis,and the
manga, and...

Yes, ok, comics are for children with a better job than me.
FABIO

bonvolu postu al longtom at oeste.com.ar

Sigvald Gr?sfjeld jr. wrote:

> An how's that look? A modern "dipshit"-look like HD&L in German covers?

See e.g. the joke page in issue #22 of the Scandinavian weeklies.

> Anyway isn't it some kind of disrespect for Barks to change the look of his
> characters to much?

Maybe. And so what?

Stefan