Lars Jensen asked:> You miss Percy and Patricia Pig(g)?! Exactly which > characteristic of theirs is it you want to see more> of, Rich? :-)
I miss them (along with Fifi, Cluck and others) as familiar "supporting" characters. I like to see familiarfaces popping up. Fifi obviously had more going for heras Minnie's dog and Pluto's affection than the Piggs didas just neighbors/friends of Mickey & Minnie's, but evenas friends, they were part of what might be considered an"inner circle." Like Clarabelle and Horace, they wouldattend functions, and make passing commentary. Perhapstheir single biggest contribution to the Disney universeis that they are the longest married couple and over timehave acquired two children... something, I might add, isnot so easily accomplished in the fictional world of Miceand Ducks. Clarabelle and Horace have been engaged foreverand Mickey & Donald have yet to make a proper proposal totheir resepctives.
I guess it's "familiarity" that I like.
Richard BellaceraMsg sent via CWNet - http://cwnet.com/
Author
Topic: 200307
(351 messages)
Xephyr
Moby Duck, Mad Madam Mim and others
Message 1 -
2003-07-01 at 08:22:45
H.W.Fluks
1st US Donald Duck comic book
Message 2 -
2003-07-01 at 11:11:37
Tom:
> "DONALD DUCK (Walt Disney's) (10 cents)
> "Whitman/K.K. Publications 1938 (6-1/2x11-1/2", B&W, cardboard-c)
> "(Has D. Duck with bubble pipe on-c)
> "nn-The first Donald Duck & Walt Disney comic book; 1936 & 1937 Sunday
> strip-r (in B&W); same format as the Feature Books; 1st
> strips with Huey, Dewey & Louie from 10/17/37"
> I don't think this comic is in I.N.D.U.C.K.S. (at least I
> couldn't find it).
I couldn't find it either. 8-)
> I've got a copy of this comic book and would be happy to index it for
> I.N.D.U.C.K.S.
You're very invited to do so!
> but I've got questions on how to identify the reprinted
> stories to the date (and more importantly the story codes) of
> the original Sunday comic strips.
The first thing that would help is a good description of the gag, plus a list of who appears in it.
We have a quite complete list of descriptions of the Sunday strips from before 1938, so finding the right dates for the reprints should not be too difficult.
> Also I need to know how to handle the "modification"
> of the stories (as many panels were clearly added to, and possibly had
> dialog added).
Usually "minor" changes like this are noted in a plain comment.
> Maybe Harry can help me?
Sure! I can send you a list of candidate Sunday strips, if you want (contact me in private mail about this). And don't worry about the exact lay-out of your index: I'll change whatever is necessary to fit it in Inducks.
--Harry.
> "DONALD DUCK (Walt Disney's) (10 cents)
> "Whitman/K.K. Publications 1938 (6-1/2x11-1/2", B&W, cardboard-c)
> "(Has D. Duck with bubble pipe on-c)
> "nn-The first Donald Duck & Walt Disney comic book; 1936 & 1937 Sunday
> strip-r (in B&W); same format as the Feature Books; 1st
> strips with Huey, Dewey & Louie from 10/17/37"
> I don't think this comic is in I.N.D.U.C.K.S. (at least I
> couldn't find it).
I couldn't find it either. 8-)
> I've got a copy of this comic book and would be happy to index it for
> I.N.D.U.C.K.S.
You're very invited to do so!
> but I've got questions on how to identify the reprinted
> stories to the date (and more importantly the story codes) of
> the original Sunday comic strips.
The first thing that would help is a good description of the gag, plus a list of who appears in it.
We have a quite complete list of descriptions of the Sunday strips from before 1938, so finding the right dates for the reprints should not be too difficult.
> Also I need to know how to handle the "modification"
> of the stories (as many panels were clearly added to, and possibly had
> dialog added).
Usually "minor" changes like this are noted in a plain comment.
> Maybe Harry can help me?
Sure! I can send you a list of candidate Sunday strips, if you want (contact me in private mail about this). And don't worry about the exact lay-out of your index: I'll change whatever is necessary to fit it in Inducks.
--Harry.
H.W.Fluks
Riddle of the red hat
Message 3 -
2003-07-01 at 11:11:47
Olaf:
> Who wrote "Riddle of the Red Hat" (W OS 79)?
>
> According to Carl Barks Library, this story was "written and
> drawn by Carl Barks".
Also, Michael Barrier does not say "Barks art only" in his bibliography.
I think we got the "Eleanor Packer?" credit from Alberto Becattini (but I haven't checked).
--Harry.
(Trying to catch up with his DCML mail)
> Who wrote "Riddle of the Red Hat" (W OS 79)?
>
> According to Carl Barks Library, this story was "written and
> drawn by Carl Barks".
Also, Michael Barrier does not say "Barks art only" in his bibliography.
I think we got the "Eleanor Packer?" credit from Alberto Becattini (but I haven't checked).
--Harry.
(Trying to catch up with his DCML mail)
H.W.Fluks
Missing Duck stories in CBLiC ?
Message 4 -
2003-07-01 at 11:15:05
Mads:
> I've read a couple of places, that the stories with Grandma
> Duck and Daisy
> Duck (Daisy's Dairy) were left out of the CBLiC.
> Initially, I figured it might have something to do that Barks
> did not write
> those stories himself, and therefore they were not considered
> worthy enough
> to include. And the fact that they were under pressure might
> have caused the
> exclusion of these stories ?! So, does anybody have something
> to contribute on this matter ?
I think two things may be involved here:
1. Gladstone needed a separate OK from Disney to print albums under a different title.
Just like they at first weren't allowed to print "Uncle Scrooge" albums (they got a separate licence for that later on).
2. Albums with Grandma Duck and Daisy Duck stories only would not sell as well as Donald or Scrooge (or even Gyro).
> Would it be possible to get Gemstone to complete what was the original
> CBLiC, or is their only plan on the CBL matter to reprint the
> original B/W series ?
Correct: I read in an interview that Geppi has no plans to print "graphic novels" at all.
--Harry.
> I've read a couple of places, that the stories with Grandma
> Duck and Daisy
> Duck (Daisy's Dairy) were left out of the CBLiC.
> Initially, I figured it might have something to do that Barks
> did not write
> those stories himself, and therefore they were not considered
> worthy enough
> to include. And the fact that they were under pressure might
> have caused the
> exclusion of these stories ?! So, does anybody have something
> to contribute on this matter ?
I think two things may be involved here:
1. Gladstone needed a separate OK from Disney to print albums under a different title.
Just like they at first weren't allowed to print "Uncle Scrooge" albums (they got a separate licence for that later on).
2. Albums with Grandma Duck and Daisy Duck stories only would not sell as well as Donald or Scrooge (or even Gyro).
> Would it be possible to get Gemstone to complete what was the original
> CBLiC, or is their only plan on the CBL matter to reprint the
> original B/W series ?
Correct: I read in an interview that Geppi has no plans to print "graphic novels" at all.
--Harry.
H.W.Fluks
Q[u]estion [a]bout Back To The Klo[n]dike
Message 5 -
2003-07-01 at 11:26:46
Maciek de Spell:
> Acording to wat I read in the Internet the orginal Carl Barks
> "Back to the
> Klondike" was 27 page long witch cut aut Flash back part of the story.
> I don't have old version of the story but the version I have
> is 30 page long and It have "Flash Back".
Strange. As Katie described, the flashback scene is 4 pages and then there are 2 more half pages missing in the original print.
AFAIK, we wave the following versions of this story:
32-page original as Barks drew it (1/2 page is lost forever)
27-page first printed version
31-page version, this is the 27-page version with 4 pages flashback re-inserted. This version was used in Holland in 1978.
32-page restored version: 27 pages + 4-page flashback + the other 1/2-page that survived, plus a 1/2-page "reconstruction", newly pencilled by Barks. This version was in the book "Uncle Scrooge His Life and Times" in 1981.
32-page restored version: same as previous, but the half page new pencils were inked by Daan Jippes. This version has been used by Gladstone ever since. And also in Holland and other countries.
So it's a mystery to me why the Polish (?) editor used the 4 pages flashback, but removed some pages elsewhere.
Katie commented:
> Someone can correct me if I'm wrong, but I think those four
> panels were just taken out to make room for advertising or for
> some other layout reason. There obviously wasn't anything to
> censor in there.
I think the 4 pages were removed because thet needed a full number of pages (they wouldn't like to print a story with 27 1/2 pages).
BTW, the "reconstruction" is definitely *not* like what has been in the original. Judging from the page layout (the space between the panels), there was at least 1 panel removed between panel 1 and 2, or before panel 1 of that page. And also after panel 7 or 8.
So the original *might* have had one more panel showing the flashback with Goldie, or maybe Scrooge telling some more about what happened afterwards. We'll never know...
--Harry.
> Acording to wat I read in the Internet the orginal Carl Barks
> "Back to the
> Klondike" was 27 page long witch cut aut Flash back part of the story.
> I don't have old version of the story but the version I have
> is 30 page long and It have "Flash Back".
Strange. As Katie described, the flashback scene is 4 pages and then there are 2 more half pages missing in the original print.
AFAIK, we wave the following versions of this story:
32-page original as Barks drew it (1/2 page is lost forever)
27-page first printed version
31-page version, this is the 27-page version with 4 pages flashback re-inserted. This version was used in Holland in 1978.
32-page restored version: 27 pages + 4-page flashback + the other 1/2-page that survived, plus a 1/2-page "reconstruction", newly pencilled by Barks. This version was in the book "Uncle Scrooge His Life and Times" in 1981.
32-page restored version: same as previous, but the half page new pencils were inked by Daan Jippes. This version has been used by Gladstone ever since. And also in Holland and other countries.
So it's a mystery to me why the Polish (?) editor used the 4 pages flashback, but removed some pages elsewhere.
Katie commented:
> Someone can correct me if I'm wrong, but I think those four
> panels were just taken out to make room for advertising or for
> some other layout reason. There obviously wasn't anything to
> censor in there.
I think the 4 pages were removed because thet needed a full number of pages (they wouldn't like to print a story with 27 1/2 pages).
BTW, the "reconstruction" is definitely *not* like what has been in the original. Judging from the page layout (the space between the panels), there was at least 1 panel removed between panel 1 and 2, or before panel 1 of that page. And also after panel 7 or 8.
So the original *might* have had one more panel showing the flashback with Goldie, or maybe Scrooge telling some more about what happened afterwards. We'll never know...
--Harry.
H.W.Fluks
April, May & June, again and again
Message 6 -
2003-07-01 at 11:29:15
Dani?l:
> Dutch comic album
> "50 Vrolijke verhalen van de Duckies, no. 1"
> BTW. The album belongs to a series which I like very much. Other albums
> contain stories by Ben Verhagen and by Mau Heijmans. I hope this series
> will continue. Do you have any information on the popularity and frequency
> of these albums, Harry? And will older albums be reprinted, or will they
> (as it seems now) disappear from the market?
I have no information other than that you're talking about *two* new series ("50 vrolijke..." and "De xxx-avonturen..."). Each series has one new album per year.
--Harry.
> Dutch comic album
> "50 Vrolijke verhalen van de Duckies, no. 1"
> BTW. The album belongs to a series which I like very much. Other albums
> contain stories by Ben Verhagen and by Mau Heijmans. I hope this series
> will continue. Do you have any information on the popularity and frequency
> of these albums, Harry? And will older albums be reprinted, or will they
> (as it seems now) disappear from the market?
I have no information other than that you're talking about *two* new series ("50 vrolijke..." and "De xxx-avonturen..."). Each series has one new album per year.
--Harry.
H.W.Fluks
Stefan Persson's reply (disney)
Message 7 -
2003-07-01 at 11:36:11
Dani?l wrote:
> Stefan, you are quoting an email that appeared empty in the
> digests, only with a link to the attachment.
Stefan replied:
> There was nothing strange with the mail when I received it.
> (Notice: I'm subscribing to the NON-digest version of DCML.)
For the record:
I also got the original text. But that mail had some very strange settings, something about Greek character sets or so. This may have caused the DCML software to treat the entire mail as an attachment.
--Harry.
("For the record? Which record?" Let's say "Scrambled Eggs" by the Beatles.)
> Stefan, you are quoting an email that appeared empty in the
> digests, only with a link to the attachment.
Stefan replied:
> There was nothing strange with the mail when I received it.
> (Notice: I'm subscribing to the NON-digest version of DCML.)
For the record:
I also got the original text. But that mail had some very strange settings, something about Greek character sets or so. This may have caused the DCML software to treat the entire mail as an attachment.
--Harry.
("For the record? Which record?" Let's say "Scrambled Eggs" by the Beatles.)
KUR
Q[u]estion [a]bout Back To The Klo[n]dike
Message 8 -
2003-07-01 at 12:00:59
>So it's a mystery to me why the Polish (?) editor used the 4 pages
flashback, but removed some pages >elsewhere.
I's not the Polish Version.
I have English.
Dis story was never (as far I now) publish in the Poland.
The version I now you can red here :
http://ksacomics.com/us2/klondike.htm
Yours
Maciek
flashback, but removed some pages >elsewhere.
I's not the Polish Version.
I have English.
Dis story was never (as far I now) publish in the Poland.
The version I now you can red here :
http://ksacomics.com/us2/klondike.htm
Yours
Maciek
H.W.Fluks
Q[u]estion [a]bout Back To The Klo[n]dike
Message 9 -
2003-07-01 at 12:05:23
> > So it's a mystery to me why the Polish (?) editor used the 4 pages
> > flashback, but removed some pages elsewhere.
>
> The version I now you can read here :
> http://ksacomics.com/us2/klondike.htm
They must have skipped 2 pages in the scanning process.
This is the version from Gladstone's comic album #4, which was 32 pages (with 1/2 page Barks/Jippes).
--Harry.
> > flashback, but removed some pages elsewhere.
>
> The version I now you can read here :
> http://ksacomics.com/us2/klondike.htm
They must have skipped 2 pages in the scanning process.
This is the version from Gladstone's comic album #4, which was 32 pages (with 1/2 page Barks/Jippes).
--Harry.
KUR
How it hapend ? (Moby Duck, Mad Madam Mim and others)
Message 10 -
2003-07-01 at 12:09:20
Hi!
You now it olweys bother me :
In storys wich was publish in Poland "Mad Madam Mim" is a good wich from
Duckburg ho olweys help other people, enemy of the Beagle Boys.
But as I read in the Internet and hear in other storys (theat wasent
publishet in Poland, jest) she is a evil wich, a villant, she helps Magica
De Spell, Beagle Boys, Hazel The Wich or some times Phantom Blot.
I never cud understud How it hapend theat are two versions of Mim : Evil and
good.
Yours
Maciek
You now it olweys bother me :
In storys wich was publish in Poland "Mad Madam Mim" is a good wich from
Duckburg ho olweys help other people, enemy of the Beagle Boys.
But as I read in the Internet and hear in other storys (theat wasent
publishet in Poland, jest) she is a evil wich, a villant, she helps Magica
De Spell, Beagle Boys, Hazel The Wich or some times Phantom Blot.
I never cud understud How it hapend theat are two versions of Mim : Evil and
good.
Yours
Maciek
Stefan Persson
Stefan Persson's reply (disney)
Message 11 -
2003-07-01 at 12:13:12
>From: <H.W.Fluks at telecom.tno.nl>
>To: <dcml at stp.ling.uu.se>
>Subject: RE: Stefan Persson's reply (Re: disney)
>Date: Tue, 1 Jul 2003 10:36:11 +0200
>I also got the original text. But that mail had some very strange settings,
>something about Greek character sets or so. This may have caused the DCML
>software to treat the entire mail as an attachment.
I've noticed that most Greek members on DCML send their mails using various
Greek character sets. Since it IS possible to read those mails, the error
in this particular mail has to be somewhere else.
Stefan
_________________________________________________________________
Hitta r?tt k?pare p? MSN K?p & S?lj http://www.msn.se/koposalj
>To: <dcml at stp.ling.uu.se>
>Subject: RE: Stefan Persson's reply (Re: disney)
>Date: Tue, 1 Jul 2003 10:36:11 +0200
>I also got the original text. But that mail had some very strange settings,
>something about Greek character sets or so. This may have caused the DCML
>software to treat the entire mail as an attachment.
I've noticed that most Greek members on DCML send their mails using various
Greek character sets. Since it IS possible to read those mails, the error
in this particular mail has to be somewhere else.
Stefan
_________________________________________________________________
Hitta r?tt k?pare p? MSN K?p & S?lj http://www.msn.se/koposalj
Stefan Persson
How it hapend ? (Moby Duck, Mad Madam Mim and others)
Message 12 -
2003-07-01 at 12:48:10
>From: "KUR" <ggk at wp.pl>
>To: "Lars Jensen" <lpj at forfatter.dk>, "Disney Comics Mailing List"
><dcml at stp.ling.uu.se>
>Subject: How it hapend ? (Re: Moby Duck, Mad Madam Mim and others)
>Date: Tue, 1 Jul 2003 11:09:20 +0200
>I never cud understud How it hapend theat are two versions of Mim : Evil
>and
>good.
Well, the original version (i.e. as in the movie) is *only* evil.
Stefan
_________________________________________________________________
Hitta r?tt p? n?tet med MSN S?k http://search.msn.se/
>To: "Lars Jensen" <lpj at forfatter.dk>, "Disney Comics Mailing List"
><dcml at stp.ling.uu.se>
>Subject: How it hapend ? (Re: Moby Duck, Mad Madam Mim and others)
>Date: Tue, 1 Jul 2003 11:09:20 +0200
>I never cud understud How it hapend theat are two versions of Mim : Evil
>and
>good.
Well, the original version (i.e. as in the movie) is *only* evil.
Stefan
_________________________________________________________________
Hitta r?tt p? n?tet med MSN S?k http://search.msn.se/
Gary Leach
DCML Digest, Vol 5, Issue 1
Message 13 -
2003-07-01 at 15:36:43
Harry:
> 1. Gladstone needed a separate OK from Disney to print albums under a
> different title.
> Just like they at first weren't allowed to print "Uncle Scrooge"
> albums (they got a separate licence for that later on).
Once Gladstone had a license to print Disney comics and albums (again),
that was all that was required. No separate license for Uncle Scrooge
was necessary. Album title changes were due to the U.S. Postal Service
and their changeable regulations.
> 2. Albums with Grandma Duck and Daisy Duck stories only would not sell
> as well as Donald or Scrooge (or even Gyro).
That, I'm afraid, is one of the main reasons that those stories did not
make it into color albums. Originally the Gladstone plan was to do
everything, but by the time we got around to the Daisy and Grandma
material we were no longer in a tenable position to publish what we
knew would not sell as well as what we had been publishing.
> Correct: I read in an interview that Geppi has no plans to print
> "graphic novels" at all.
What this refers to - if we're talking about the same interview - is
the 8 1/2" by 11" album format, which has never managed to be terribly
popular in the U.S. The smaller, 5" by 7 1/2" (or thereabouts) trade
paperback format, though, is very popular, and that is what we are
going into with our 128-page "Take-Along Comics" line. The first issue
ships later this month, and will feature "pocket book" style Donald,
Mickey, and Uncle Scrooge stories that have not been published before
in North America.
The somewhat larger, 6 5/8" by 10 3/16" (or thereabouts) trade
paperback format is also a possibility for a revived CBLiC series,
though, as I might have mentioned here before, no formal plans have
been made as yet.
Gary
> 1. Gladstone needed a separate OK from Disney to print albums under a
> different title.
> Just like they at first weren't allowed to print "Uncle Scrooge"
> albums (they got a separate licence for that later on).
Once Gladstone had a license to print Disney comics and albums (again),
that was all that was required. No separate license for Uncle Scrooge
was necessary. Album title changes were due to the U.S. Postal Service
and their changeable regulations.
> 2. Albums with Grandma Duck and Daisy Duck stories only would not sell
> as well as Donald or Scrooge (or even Gyro).
That, I'm afraid, is one of the main reasons that those stories did not
make it into color albums. Originally the Gladstone plan was to do
everything, but by the time we got around to the Daisy and Grandma
material we were no longer in a tenable position to publish what we
knew would not sell as well as what we had been publishing.
> Correct: I read in an interview that Geppi has no plans to print
> "graphic novels" at all.
What this refers to - if we're talking about the same interview - is
the 8 1/2" by 11" album format, which has never managed to be terribly
popular in the U.S. The smaller, 5" by 7 1/2" (or thereabouts) trade
paperback format, though, is very popular, and that is what we are
going into with our 128-page "Take-Along Comics" line. The first issue
ships later this month, and will feature "pocket book" style Donald,
Mickey, and Uncle Scrooge stories that have not been published before
in North America.
The somewhat larger, 6 5/8" by 10 3/16" (or thereabouts) trade
paperback format is also a possibility for a revived CBLiC series,
though, as I might have mentioned here before, no formal plans have
been made as yet.
Gary
Myklebust,Are
Scrambled egg
Message 14 -
2003-07-01 at 16:09:00
Nils Lid Hjort wrote (29-JUN-2003):
"These are the original two opening words of one of the most popular songs
ever concocted & sold to the world. It so happened, however, that Sir P
changed his mind at the final stages of composing, and changed these two
words to one.
(Which?)"
The song is off course "Yesterday" by (Sir) Paul McCartney!
Are Myklebust
"These are the original two opening words of one of the most popular songs
ever concocted & sold to the world. It so happened, however, that Sir P
changed his mind at the final stages of composing, and changed these two
words to one.
(Which?)"
The song is off course "Yesterday" by (Sir) Paul McCartney!
Are Myklebust
Myklebust,Are
Off-topic eggs (scrambled eggs)
Message 15 -
2003-07-01 at 16:16:52
Argh!
I just discovered Daniel van Eijmeren has allready giving us this
information!
Sorry Daniel! (and to the rest of you for beiing Off-topic!)
Are Myklebust
I just discovered Daniel van Eijmeren has allready giving us this
information!
Sorry Daniel! (and to the rest of you for beiing Off-topic!)
Are Myklebust