> I think it could work. A few years ago there was a wonderful Pete story in the
> Norwegian DD&Co (sorry, I'm not in my library now so I can't give you the story
> code, but it may have been drawn by Ferioli).
It is "History Re-Petes Itself", from our friend David Gerstein and our myth Romano Scarpa, Inducks code D 99156
Ciao,
- Paolo
http://digilander.libero.it/inducks mailto:p.castagno at libero.it
Pages:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
Author
Topic: 200308
(787 messages)
Paolo Castagno
The "Pete" Proposition
Message 256 -
2003-08-12 at 23:42:53
Rich Bellacera
The "Pete" Proposition
Message 257 -
2003-08-12 at 23:44:13
Nils from Norway said:
> Anyway, in this story Pete is hit by a ray
> that turns him into a fast-growing baby.
> Mickey decides to raise him...
That's a prime example of a Gerstein Mickey that I'd love to see printed in the US!
The story is called "History Re-Petes Itself" and the art was by Romano Scarpa!!!
http://stp.ling.uu.se/cgi-bin/starback/dcml/story?D+99156
This is exactly the kinda "bits-and-peices" material that could be tapped to write
the Pete History.
Thanks,
Rich Bellacera
(Email removed)
---- Msg sent via CWNet - http://cwnet.com/
> Anyway, in this story Pete is hit by a ray
> that turns him into a fast-growing baby.
> Mickey decides to raise him...
That's a prime example of a Gerstein Mickey that I'd love to see printed in the US!
The story is called "History Re-Petes Itself" and the art was by Romano Scarpa!!!
http://stp.ling.uu.se/cgi-bin/starback/dcml/story?D+99156
This is exactly the kinda "bits-and-peices" material that could be tapped to write
the Pete History.
Thanks,
Rich Bellacera
(Email removed)
---- Msg sent via CWNet - http://cwnet.com/
Sigvald Grøsfjeld Jr.
One mail - many topics!
Message 258 -
2003-08-13 at 01:46:30
Hi all!
In order to help keeping the input to DCML at a decent level I hearby
include my responses/comments to many mail in this one mail (thanks for this
nice ida Olaf!)
Daniel van Eijmeren:
--------------------
>>> Barks made modern stories himself, and Blum
>>> followed that tradition. That's not an
>>> opinion. That's a fact.
>>
>> Barks din *not* set his stories in 2003.
>> That's a fact too.
>
> Barks died in 2000. I don't appreciate this
> morbid comment from you. And you missed my
> point, anyway.
My comment was *not* meant to be morbid, insulting or what so ever. Please
stop reading more into my statements that there really is.
>> Barks didn't say that. In the comments to Lo$
>> chapter X, Don Rosa says though, that the Bin
>> couldn't possibly have been raised in 1886.
>
> Rosa has *never* been a source for Barks'
> stories. (The only possible exception would
> be Barks' 1990s script-only stories.) So,
> this is a Rosa-fact. No Barks-fact.
Not a "Rosa-fact", just a "Rosa-opinion" and thus a very qualified opinion ?
not because he is a great artist himself, but because he has read and
studied Barks' stories for almost 50 years.
Anthvvuono at aol.com:
-------------------
> Will we ever see any of the Beagle women
> revealed in a Rosa story for example? Or like
> Maris Crane from Frasier on television, will
> they always remain hidden? I've always wanted
> to see the wife of Blackheart Beagle and if
> she was just as conniving and desirous of
> McDuck's money as Blackheart was (is)? How
> about a story with her and the sons' wives
> finally revealed? Could be interesting to see!
AFAIK there already exists a Grandma-Beagle, perhaps it is in Tony Strobl's
stories, I don't remember exactly. Can anyone help?
Kriton Kyrimis
--------------
>> First I said the exactly same about my
>> ancestors pre-christian beliefs.
>
> So it is OK to insult others, as long as you
> insult your own people first?
No, no, no, I din't mean to insult anyone with the actual statement. Please
stop reading more into my statements that there really is.
Joakim Gunnarsson:
------------------
> PS. One of this lists Norwegian members might
> not want to read it, since it isn't based upon
> facts in Barks or Rosas stories. But I'm pretty
> sure most of the DCML:ers will enjoy it.
Thinking about me? Well then you don't need to worry! Al. Taliaferro is a
well known and highly respected respected artist, so I look forward to se
that story one day!
Mark S.:
--------
>> The same way it would IMO be wrong to set
>> a Poirot or a Ms Marple story to 2003.
>
> Has anyone here read Archie Comics? In the
> 1940s, Archie took place in the forties. In
> the 1990s, Archie took place in the ninties.
> Now, Archie and his gang are all in high school
> circa 2003.
What has this Archie to do with Poirot or Ms Marple who was used in my
example?
Anyway let me give you all a new example:
Elvis Presley did what was modern music from the 1950's until the 1970's.
What many of you here seems to say, is that if someone had access to some
old lyrics written by Elvis, that had never previously been used in any
song, some modern artist could use those lyrics in a modern (2003) hip-hop
context and still claim to be honest and respectful towards Elvis. I guess
most true Elvis-fans wouldn't agree to that, they would instead have wanted
those lyrics to be used with music of classical Elvis style. Got my point
now?
Rich Bellacera:
---------------
> I think there is enough bits-and-pieces
> available to pull together a very interesting
> and exciting backstory for Pete, and weaving
> the various popular Disney icons and other
> characters into his life would certainly only
> HELP bolster his identity among readers. Pete
> is the ONE villain who has indeed penetrated
> the lives of nearly evey other character in
> Mouseton/Duckburg, so his presence is even
> more universal than Scrooge, in fact. He's also
> worked with nearly every other villain in the
> Disney universe at one time or another. Plus
> his life is full of failures, which makes him
> the extreme opposite karmically to Scrooge,
> but probably makes him much more "human" and
> identifiable to readers than Scrooge does.
Yes, that could be done. But if so, it should IMO be done in the same vain
as Lo$. Like Lo$ is based upon Barks, a similar "The Life and Times of Pete"
should IMO faithfully be based upon Gottfredson and/or Murry. Off course
some elements, as his relationship with Petra (his girlfriend in the DD
Pockets), could be added. But IMO there should *not* be any references to
the Ducks what so ever (other that perhaps "hidden Donalds" used as minor
jokes), this because many readers believe that the Duck-universe and the
Mouse-universe are two completely separate universes.
Rick you didn't come up with any candidate for doing the job, but I am sure
that such a clever and serious artist as David Gerstein could do such a tale
in a wonderful way.
Sigvald
In order to help keeping the input to DCML at a decent level I hearby
include my responses/comments to many mail in this one mail (thanks for this
nice ida Olaf!)
Daniel van Eijmeren:
--------------------
>>> Barks made modern stories himself, and Blum
>>> followed that tradition. That's not an
>>> opinion. That's a fact.
>>
>> Barks din *not* set his stories in 2003.
>> That's a fact too.
>
> Barks died in 2000. I don't appreciate this
> morbid comment from you. And you missed my
> point, anyway.
My comment was *not* meant to be morbid, insulting or what so ever. Please
stop reading more into my statements that there really is.
>> Barks didn't say that. In the comments to Lo$
>> chapter X, Don Rosa says though, that the Bin
>> couldn't possibly have been raised in 1886.
>
> Rosa has *never* been a source for Barks'
> stories. (The only possible exception would
> be Barks' 1990s script-only stories.) So,
> this is a Rosa-fact. No Barks-fact.
Not a "Rosa-fact", just a "Rosa-opinion" and thus a very qualified opinion ?
not because he is a great artist himself, but because he has read and
studied Barks' stories for almost 50 years.
Anthvvuono at aol.com:
-------------------
> Will we ever see any of the Beagle women
> revealed in a Rosa story for example? Or like
> Maris Crane from Frasier on television, will
> they always remain hidden? I've always wanted
> to see the wife of Blackheart Beagle and if
> she was just as conniving and desirous of
> McDuck's money as Blackheart was (is)? How
> about a story with her and the sons' wives
> finally revealed? Could be interesting to see!
AFAIK there already exists a Grandma-Beagle, perhaps it is in Tony Strobl's
stories, I don't remember exactly. Can anyone help?
Kriton Kyrimis
--------------
>> First I said the exactly same about my
>> ancestors pre-christian beliefs.
>
> So it is OK to insult others, as long as you
> insult your own people first?
No, no, no, I din't mean to insult anyone with the actual statement. Please
stop reading more into my statements that there really is.
Joakim Gunnarsson:
------------------
> PS. One of this lists Norwegian members might
> not want to read it, since it isn't based upon
> facts in Barks or Rosas stories. But I'm pretty
> sure most of the DCML:ers will enjoy it.
Thinking about me? Well then you don't need to worry! Al. Taliaferro is a
well known and highly respected respected artist, so I look forward to se
that story one day!
Mark S.:
--------
>> The same way it would IMO be wrong to set
>> a Poirot or a Ms Marple story to 2003.
>
> Has anyone here read Archie Comics? In the
> 1940s, Archie took place in the forties. In
> the 1990s, Archie took place in the ninties.
> Now, Archie and his gang are all in high school
> circa 2003.
What has this Archie to do with Poirot or Ms Marple who was used in my
example?
Anyway let me give you all a new example:
Elvis Presley did what was modern music from the 1950's until the 1970's.
What many of you here seems to say, is that if someone had access to some
old lyrics written by Elvis, that had never previously been used in any
song, some modern artist could use those lyrics in a modern (2003) hip-hop
context and still claim to be honest and respectful towards Elvis. I guess
most true Elvis-fans wouldn't agree to that, they would instead have wanted
those lyrics to be used with music of classical Elvis style. Got my point
now?
Rich Bellacera:
---------------
> I think there is enough bits-and-pieces
> available to pull together a very interesting
> and exciting backstory for Pete, and weaving
> the various popular Disney icons and other
> characters into his life would certainly only
> HELP bolster his identity among readers. Pete
> is the ONE villain who has indeed penetrated
> the lives of nearly evey other character in
> Mouseton/Duckburg, so his presence is even
> more universal than Scrooge, in fact. He's also
> worked with nearly every other villain in the
> Disney universe at one time or another. Plus
> his life is full of failures, which makes him
> the extreme opposite karmically to Scrooge,
> but probably makes him much more "human" and
> identifiable to readers than Scrooge does.
Yes, that could be done. But if so, it should IMO be done in the same vain
as Lo$. Like Lo$ is based upon Barks, a similar "The Life and Times of Pete"
should IMO faithfully be based upon Gottfredson and/or Murry. Off course
some elements, as his relationship with Petra (his girlfriend in the DD
Pockets), could be added. But IMO there should *not* be any references to
the Ducks what so ever (other that perhaps "hidden Donalds" used as minor
jokes), this because many readers believe that the Duck-universe and the
Mouse-universe are two completely separate universes.
Rick you didn't come up with any candidate for doing the job, but I am sure
that such a clever and serious artist as David Gerstein could do such a tale
in a wonderful way.
Sigvald
Rich Bellacera
The "Pete" Proposition
Message 259 -
2003-08-13 at 02:36:58
Sigvald Grøsfjeld jr. said:
> ...Like Lo$ is based upon Barks, a similar
> "The Life and Times of Pete" should IMO
> faithfully be based upon Gottfredson and/
> or Murry.
Oh no, no no... While I agree that the standard for Pete was established in comics
by Gottfredson, and Murry certainly added a lot to Pete (family, partners, etc.),
I don't believe any creator who took up the task should be limited by those two
creators... for instance, creators like Scarpa and Gerstein added some wonderful
details and they should be considered as well.
> But IMO there should *not* be any references
> to the Ducks what so ever
Well, I'm certainly glad those are your opinions, but they wouldn't be true to
Pete's history since he sprang fully created from cartoons and I don't think the
cartoons or comics should be left out as available reference material for Pete's
history, especially since so many of the early comics were enhanced retellings of
the cartoons anyhow, and Pete's early comicbook history and continuing even to
today, includes both Ducks and Mouses. Sure there's way too much material for it
ALL to be considered, and some does contradict (Goof Troop), but a good creator
can weed through the available material and create a good backstory for Pete.
> (other that perhaps "hidden Donalds" used as minor jokes),
Well, I'm not sure any creator should be a Rosa-Clone and copy his idea, and I'm
not all that certain the "hidden Mickeys" in Rosa's work are meant to be
flattering or a tribute since I think, though I certainly could be wrong, that
Rosa really doesn't like the Mouse side of Disney (or anything not-Duck for that
matter).
> this because many readers believe that the Duck-
> universe and the Mouse-universe are two completely
> separate universes.
Again, I would disagree. Maybe many readers believe Mickey and Donald live in
different TOWNS, but I'd reckon most are comfortable thinking Mickey and Donald
exist in the same Universe, but that they just don't always interact in stories.
I *think* the "seperate" UNIVERSES idea is more yours and Rosa's idea than
Disney's or a majority of Disney fans.
Rich Bellacera
(Email removed)
---- Msg sent via CWNet - http://cwnet.com/
> ...Like Lo$ is based upon Barks, a similar
> "The Life and Times of Pete" should IMO
> faithfully be based upon Gottfredson and/
> or Murry.
Oh no, no no... While I agree that the standard for Pete was established in comics
by Gottfredson, and Murry certainly added a lot to Pete (family, partners, etc.),
I don't believe any creator who took up the task should be limited by those two
creators... for instance, creators like Scarpa and Gerstein added some wonderful
details and they should be considered as well.
> But IMO there should *not* be any references
> to the Ducks what so ever
Well, I'm certainly glad those are your opinions, but they wouldn't be true to
Pete's history since he sprang fully created from cartoons and I don't think the
cartoons or comics should be left out as available reference material for Pete's
history, especially since so many of the early comics were enhanced retellings of
the cartoons anyhow, and Pete's early comicbook history and continuing even to
today, includes both Ducks and Mouses. Sure there's way too much material for it
ALL to be considered, and some does contradict (Goof Troop), but a good creator
can weed through the available material and create a good backstory for Pete.
> (other that perhaps "hidden Donalds" used as minor jokes),
Well, I'm not sure any creator should be a Rosa-Clone and copy his idea, and I'm
not all that certain the "hidden Mickeys" in Rosa's work are meant to be
flattering or a tribute since I think, though I certainly could be wrong, that
Rosa really doesn't like the Mouse side of Disney (or anything not-Duck for that
matter).
> this because many readers believe that the Duck-
> universe and the Mouse-universe are two completely
> separate universes.
Again, I would disagree. Maybe many readers believe Mickey and Donald live in
different TOWNS, but I'd reckon most are comfortable thinking Mickey and Donald
exist in the same Universe, but that they just don't always interact in stories.
I *think* the "seperate" UNIVERSES idea is more yours and Rosa's idea than
Disney's or a majority of Disney fans.
Rich Bellacera
(Email removed)
---- Msg sent via CWNet - http://cwnet.com/
Shad Z.
Web polls (I accidently deleted the original thread title...)
Message 260 -
2003-08-13 at 02:52:12
> Me:
> > >>But is Barks really more popular than Rosa now?
>
> Timo:
> > How you measure popularity? By readership? (...)
>
>
> I asked this question because I made a poll for the most popular Disney
> creator on my website a couple of months ago. Don Rosa won (45%), Barks
> was
> the second (18%), Vicar was the third (8%). So Don Rosa is the most
> popular Disney creator in Poland,
Sorry, but your conclusion is unwarrented. Since you have a web site,
you really should be aware that Web Polls are totally non-scientific
and you can't really draw any conclusions from them. The results of
your poll do not mean that Don Rosa is the most popular Disney creator
in Poland, they just mean that Don Rosa is the most popular Disney
creator among the set of people who:
1. have internet access
2. read Polish
3. have enought interest in Disney Comics to have found your web site
while the poll was being conducted.
You can't statistically say this group of people is representative
of the population of Poland.
And I'm not even bringing up the fact that it is fairly easy for
a determined hacker to defeat whatever security you may have had
and vote multiple times, further skewing the results.
--
Shad Z. ^Q^
http://shadz.homestead.com/files/
HONK TO SEE PUPPIES
Sign along US 287, Loveland CO
--
__________________________________________________________
Sign-up for your own personalized E-mail at Mail.com
http://www.mail.com/?sr=signup
CareerBuilder.com has over 400,000 jobs. Be smarter about your job search
http://corp.mail.com/careers
> > >>But is Barks really more popular than Rosa now?
>
> Timo:
> > How you measure popularity? By readership? (...)
>
>
> I asked this question because I made a poll for the most popular Disney
> creator on my website a couple of months ago. Don Rosa won (45%), Barks
> was
> the second (18%), Vicar was the third (8%). So Don Rosa is the most
> popular Disney creator in Poland,
Sorry, but your conclusion is unwarrented. Since you have a web site,
you really should be aware that Web Polls are totally non-scientific
and you can't really draw any conclusions from them. The results of
your poll do not mean that Don Rosa is the most popular Disney creator
in Poland, they just mean that Don Rosa is the most popular Disney
creator among the set of people who:
1. have internet access
2. read Polish
3. have enought interest in Disney Comics to have found your web site
while the poll was being conducted.
You can't statistically say this group of people is representative
of the population of Poland.
And I'm not even bringing up the fact that it is fairly easy for
a determined hacker to defeat whatever security you may have had
and vote multiple times, further skewing the results.
--
Shad Z. ^Q^
http://shadz.homestead.com/files/
HONK TO SEE PUPPIES
Sign along US 287, Loveland CO
--
__________________________________________________________
Sign-up for your own personalized E-mail at Mail.com
http://www.mail.com/?sr=signup
CareerBuilder.com has over 400,000 jobs. Be smarter about your job search
http://corp.mail.com/careers
Daniel Van Eijmeren
Seriousness
Message 261 -
2003-08-13 at 04:31:43
MATEUSZ LIS to STEFAN PERSSON, 12-08-2003:
> It looks like not everyone interprets emoticons [ ;-) ] in the
> same way I do. Next time I will try to be more serious.
Please, *don't* try to be more serious.
Without little jokes, DCML would be less fun to read.
--- Dani?l
> It looks like not everyone interprets emoticons [ ;-) ] in the
> same way I do. Next time I will try to be more serious.
Please, *don't* try to be more serious.
Without little jokes, DCML would be less fun to read.
--- Dani?l
Sigvald Grøsfjeld Jr.
The "Pete" Proposition
Message 262 -
2003-08-13 at 04:51:13
Rich Bellacera wrote:
>> ...Like Lo$ is based upon Barks, a similar
>> "The Life and Times of Pete" should IMO
>> faithfully be based upon Gottfredson and/
>> or Murry.
>
> Oh no, no no... While I agree that the standard
> for Pete was established in comics by
> Gottfredson, and Murry certainly added a lot
> to Pete (family, partners, etc.), I don't
> believe any creator who took up the task
> should be limited by those two creators...
> for instance, creators like Scarpa and
> Gerstein added some wonderful details and
> they should be considered as well.
Off course, but IMO only if they don't contradict major "paradigms"
established by Gottfredson and/or Murry. The reason I think so is the
necessity for consistency in such a major work.
>> But IMO there should *not* be any references
>> to the Ducks what so ever
>
> Well, I'm certainly glad those are your
> opinions, but they wouldn't be true to
> Pete's history since he sprang fully created
> from cartoons and I don't think the
> cartoons or comics should be left out as
> available reference material for Pete's
> history...
Personally I think that Don Rosa did well with Lo$ without considering the
various cartoons featuring $crooge, thus I guess it would be possible to do
so with other characters as well. But when this is said, there is IMO
nothing wrong by getting inspiration from cartons either, as long as it
doesn't harm the consistency.
>> (other that perhaps "hidden Donalds" used as
>> minor jokes),
>
> Well, I'm not sure any creator should be a
> Rosa-Clone and copy his idea, and I'm
> not all that certain the "hidden Mickeys" in
> Rosa's work are meant to be flattering or a
> tribute since I think, though I certainly could
> be wrong, that Rosa really doesn't like the
> Mouse side of Disney (or anything not-Duck for
> that matter).
You right, the hidden Mickey's is not there to celebrate Mickey. Anyway my
tip about "hidden Donald's" in this connection was not to make that creator
a Rosa-clone, only a way such a creator could make some references to Don
Rosa and/or even Barks.
> I *think* the "separate" UNIVERSES idea is
> more yours and Rosa's idea than Disney's or
> a majority of Disney fans.
Maybe so, but at least that is one of the issues an artist writing LoP would
face.
Anyway a LoP should IMO be written and drawn by someone well familiar with
the original US version of Pete. For all we know, Europeans may be as
confused about Pete's background as they obvious were about the Ducks family
relations.
Sigvald
>> ...Like Lo$ is based upon Barks, a similar
>> "The Life and Times of Pete" should IMO
>> faithfully be based upon Gottfredson and/
>> or Murry.
>
> Oh no, no no... While I agree that the standard
> for Pete was established in comics by
> Gottfredson, and Murry certainly added a lot
> to Pete (family, partners, etc.), I don't
> believe any creator who took up the task
> should be limited by those two creators...
> for instance, creators like Scarpa and
> Gerstein added some wonderful details and
> they should be considered as well.
Off course, but IMO only if they don't contradict major "paradigms"
established by Gottfredson and/or Murry. The reason I think so is the
necessity for consistency in such a major work.
>> But IMO there should *not* be any references
>> to the Ducks what so ever
>
> Well, I'm certainly glad those are your
> opinions, but they wouldn't be true to
> Pete's history since he sprang fully created
> from cartoons and I don't think the
> cartoons or comics should be left out as
> available reference material for Pete's
> history...
Personally I think that Don Rosa did well with Lo$ without considering the
various cartoons featuring $crooge, thus I guess it would be possible to do
so with other characters as well. But when this is said, there is IMO
nothing wrong by getting inspiration from cartons either, as long as it
doesn't harm the consistency.
>> (other that perhaps "hidden Donalds" used as
>> minor jokes),
>
> Well, I'm not sure any creator should be a
> Rosa-Clone and copy his idea, and I'm
> not all that certain the "hidden Mickeys" in
> Rosa's work are meant to be flattering or a
> tribute since I think, though I certainly could
> be wrong, that Rosa really doesn't like the
> Mouse side of Disney (or anything not-Duck for
> that matter).
You right, the hidden Mickey's is not there to celebrate Mickey. Anyway my
tip about "hidden Donald's" in this connection was not to make that creator
a Rosa-clone, only a way such a creator could make some references to Don
Rosa and/or even Barks.
> I *think* the "separate" UNIVERSES idea is
> more yours and Rosa's idea than Disney's or
> a majority of Disney fans.
Maybe so, but at least that is one of the issues an artist writing LoP would
face.
Anyway a LoP should IMO be written and drawn by someone well familiar with
the original US version of Pete. For all we know, Europeans may be as
confused about Pete's background as they obvious were about the Ducks family
relations.
Sigvald
Daniel Van Eijmeren
One mail - many topics!
Message 263 -
2003-08-13 at 05:32:43
SIGVALD GROSFJELD to me, 12-08-2003:
>>> Barks didn't say that. In the comments to Lo$ chapter X, Don Rosa
>>> says though, that the Bin couldn't possibly have been raised in
>>> 1886.
>> Rosa has *never* been a source for Barks' stories. (The only
>> possible exception would be Barks' 1990s script-only stories.)
>> So, this is a Rosa-fact. No Barks-fact.
> Not a "Rosa-fact", just a "Rosa-opinion" and thus a very qualified
> opinion ? not because he is a great artist himself, but because he
> has read and studied Barks' stories for almost 50 years.
Still, that doesn't turn Don Rosa into Carl Barks, or vice versa.
You seem to think they're interchangeable. That's my point. They're two
*different* persons, with *different* views, and *different* perceptions.
Carl Barks = Carl Barks
Don Rosa = Don Rosa
And there are many *more* Barks experts who have their own qualified
opinion on Barks. Don Rosa certainly isn't the only one. Can you accept
that, Sigvald? Yes or no?
SIGVALD GROSFJELD to MARK S., 12-08-2003:
>> The same way it would IMO be wrong to set a Poirot or a
>> Ms Marple story to 2003.
> Has anyone here read Archie Comics? In the 1940s, Archie took place
> in the forties. In the 1990s, Archie took place in the ninties. Now,
> Archie and his gang are all in high school circa 2003.
> What has this Archie to do with Poirot or Ms Marple who was used in
> my example?
What has Poirot or Ms Marple to do with Carl Barks?
The way Mark describes the Archie Comics, they have the same "modern
time" concept as Barks's.
I think your Poirot or Ms Marple example would fit with *Rosa*.
> Anyway let me give you all a new example:
New homework? Does it really make you crazy if people just don't agree
with you? Is that so difficult to accept?
Why do you need to go on and on with your attempts to make clear that
something is wrong with (this time) Blum's opinion and intentions?
You sound as if you have something against Blum in a personal way.
Blum must bleed for something, it seems. Why are you doing this, Sigvald?
> Elvis Presley did what was modern music from the 1950's until the
> 1970's. [...]
Who's the first to fall into this trap?
Let's hide in the bushes and see!
But in case anyone is really interested in hairsplitting this new example,
please go to an Elvis Presley mailing list or elsewhere. This is OFF-TOPIC!
--- Dani?l
>>> Barks didn't say that. In the comments to Lo$ chapter X, Don Rosa
>>> says though, that the Bin couldn't possibly have been raised in
>>> 1886.
>> Rosa has *never* been a source for Barks' stories. (The only
>> possible exception would be Barks' 1990s script-only stories.)
>> So, this is a Rosa-fact. No Barks-fact.
> Not a "Rosa-fact", just a "Rosa-opinion" and thus a very qualified
> opinion ? not because he is a great artist himself, but because he
> has read and studied Barks' stories for almost 50 years.
Still, that doesn't turn Don Rosa into Carl Barks, or vice versa.
You seem to think they're interchangeable. That's my point. They're two
*different* persons, with *different* views, and *different* perceptions.
Carl Barks = Carl Barks
Don Rosa = Don Rosa
And there are many *more* Barks experts who have their own qualified
opinion on Barks. Don Rosa certainly isn't the only one. Can you accept
that, Sigvald? Yes or no?
SIGVALD GROSFJELD to MARK S., 12-08-2003:
>> The same way it would IMO be wrong to set a Poirot or a
>> Ms Marple story to 2003.
> Has anyone here read Archie Comics? In the 1940s, Archie took place
> in the forties. In the 1990s, Archie took place in the ninties. Now,
> Archie and his gang are all in high school circa 2003.
> What has this Archie to do with Poirot or Ms Marple who was used in
> my example?
What has Poirot or Ms Marple to do with Carl Barks?
The way Mark describes the Archie Comics, they have the same "modern
time" concept as Barks's.
I think your Poirot or Ms Marple example would fit with *Rosa*.
> Anyway let me give you all a new example:
New homework? Does it really make you crazy if people just don't agree
with you? Is that so difficult to accept?
Why do you need to go on and on with your attempts to make clear that
something is wrong with (this time) Blum's opinion and intentions?
You sound as if you have something against Blum in a personal way.
Blum must bleed for something, it seems. Why are you doing this, Sigvald?
> Elvis Presley did what was modern music from the 1950's until the
> 1970's. [...]
Who's the first to fall into this trap?
Let's hide in the bushes and see!
But in case anyone is really interested in hairsplitting this new example,
please go to an Elvis Presley mailing list or elsewhere. This is OFF-TOPIC!
--- Dani?l
Danehog
DCML's Mixture of Humor and Seriousness
Message 264 -
2003-08-13 at 06:38:08
Dani?l wrote:
> Please, *don't* try to be more serious.
> Without little jokes, DCML would be less fun to read.
Agreed. I like the humor in DCML for its subtlety. It's not overdone, and it
usually mixes in well with the serious comments and analyses.
--
Dane
> Please, *don't* try to be more serious.
> Without little jokes, DCML would be less fun to read.
Agreed. I like the humor in DCML for its subtlety. It's not overdone, and it
usually mixes in well with the serious comments and analyses.
--
Dane
Danehog
Character Consistency
Message 265 -
2003-08-13 at 06:40:15
Sigvald wrote:
>Personally I think that Don Rosa did well with Lo$ without considering the
>various cartoons featuring $crooge, thus I guess it would be possible to do
>so with other characters as well. But when this is said, there is IMO
>nothing wrong by getting inspiration from cartons either, as long as it
>doesn't harm the consistency.
But why must there be consistency? I don't see a problem with having
different "versions" of various characters, assuming it's not overdone, and there is a
reason for such versions. (For instance, Peg Leg Pete becoming a suburban car
salesman in the "Goof Troop" cartoon.)
Sorry for originally sending this message to your personal e-mail, Sigvald.
I'll never stop doing that. Ever. How pathetic.
--
Dane
>Personally I think that Don Rosa did well with Lo$ without considering the
>various cartoons featuring $crooge, thus I guess it would be possible to do
>so with other characters as well. But when this is said, there is IMO
>nothing wrong by getting inspiration from cartons either, as long as it
>doesn't harm the consistency.
But why must there be consistency? I don't see a problem with having
different "versions" of various characters, assuming it's not overdone, and there is a
reason for such versions. (For instance, Peg Leg Pete becoming a suburban car
salesman in the "Goof Troop" cartoon.)
Sorry for originally sending this message to your personal e-mail, Sigvald.
I'll never stop doing that. Ever. How pathetic.
--
Dane
Timo Ronkainen
Huey, Dewey, Louie
Message 266 -
2003-08-13 at 11:00:40
> >So there's indeed some mix-up here, but I tend to give the cartoon >first
> >credit. I'd be interested in any new information on this matter, too.
On an English edition of Italian collection of Barks' H,D&L stories (one of
those huge IO books) Barks tells in his foreword about the creation of the
nephews. I wonder why this reference is so seldomly used or mentioned.
Here are some excerpts:
"The three star-destined ducklings were born in 1937 in a cluttered
apartment house behind Walt Disney's old Hyperion Avenue studio in
Hollywood. Several midwives were present during the hatching, and each aided
in special way to usher the noisy little quackers into flickery world of
make-believe. I was one of those midwives, and, if memory serves me right, I
was the only one who greeted the newborn with less enthusiasm. "Put them
back in the egg" was my comment. "They will never be anything but animators'
nightmares and storymen's headaches." How many, many times in the years
since have I eaten those ill-chosen words, feathers and all.
It was a suggestion, I recall, by someone (I believe his name was Joe Sabo)
in the animation department that prompted the creation of the trio. The
suggestion was, in effect, since Mickey Mouse had three nephews, why not let
Donald have three? [...] Harry Reeves, Roy Williams and Homer Brightman were
among those who covered stacks of Walt's most expensive bond paper with
imaginative doodles. A gagman - I'm told he was Dana Coty, late of such
Roaring Twenties humor factories as Life and Judge - contributed the names
Huey, Dewey and Louie. Chuck Couch, Ted Sears and many others fed fuel into
incubator, and very shortly the "Duck Unit" composed of Harry Reeves and
myself, had the beginnings of a scenario pinned up on the Celotex walls of
our room. The three nephews were born...."
He might remeber some things incorrectly (like Mickey's *three* nephews),
but I guess it's mainly correct.
Timo
^^''*''^^
Cartoonist - writer - donaldist -
Timo Ronkainen ---------------- -
YO-kyl? 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/
?? Kvaak-sarjakuvaportaali:
http://www.kvaak.fi
.................................
"Rumble on, buxom bumble bee!
Go sit on cowslip - far from me!"
_________________________________________________________________
Tilaa nyt Hotmail postit k?nnykk??si! http://www.msn.fi/mobiili/
> >credit. I'd be interested in any new information on this matter, too.
On an English edition of Italian collection of Barks' H,D&L stories (one of
those huge IO books) Barks tells in his foreword about the creation of the
nephews. I wonder why this reference is so seldomly used or mentioned.
Here are some excerpts:
"The three star-destined ducklings were born in 1937 in a cluttered
apartment house behind Walt Disney's old Hyperion Avenue studio in
Hollywood. Several midwives were present during the hatching, and each aided
in special way to usher the noisy little quackers into flickery world of
make-believe. I was one of those midwives, and, if memory serves me right, I
was the only one who greeted the newborn with less enthusiasm. "Put them
back in the egg" was my comment. "They will never be anything but animators'
nightmares and storymen's headaches." How many, many times in the years
since have I eaten those ill-chosen words, feathers and all.
It was a suggestion, I recall, by someone (I believe his name was Joe Sabo)
in the animation department that prompted the creation of the trio. The
suggestion was, in effect, since Mickey Mouse had three nephews, why not let
Donald have three? [...] Harry Reeves, Roy Williams and Homer Brightman were
among those who covered stacks of Walt's most expensive bond paper with
imaginative doodles. A gagman - I'm told he was Dana Coty, late of such
Roaring Twenties humor factories as Life and Judge - contributed the names
Huey, Dewey and Louie. Chuck Couch, Ted Sears and many others fed fuel into
incubator, and very shortly the "Duck Unit" composed of Harry Reeves and
myself, had the beginnings of a scenario pinned up on the Celotex walls of
our room. The three nephews were born...."
He might remeber some things incorrectly (like Mickey's *three* nephews),
but I guess it's mainly correct.
Timo
^^''*''^^
Cartoonist - writer - donaldist -
Timo Ronkainen ---------------- -
YO-kyl? 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/
?? Kvaak-sarjakuvaportaali:
http://www.kvaak.fi
.................................
"Rumble on, buxom bumble bee!
Go sit on cowslip - far from me!"
_________________________________________________________________
Tilaa nyt Hotmail postit k?nnykk??si! http://www.msn.fi/mobiili/
Frank Bubacz
Huey, Dewey, Louie
Message 267 -
2003-08-13 at 11:39:13
Thanks Timo!
That must have been the first really interesting post in about a dozen
digests mainly consisting of flame wars. So can anybody tell me now where it
was first claimed that it was Taliaferro's idea to add nephews to the lonely
Donald, and if the source is as trustable as Barks?
Frank
_________________________________________________________________
MSN Hotmail? - ?Absolut kostenfrei! Der weltweit gr??te E-Mail-Anbieter im
Netz: http://www.msn.de/hotmail
That must have been the first really interesting post in about a dozen
digests mainly consisting of flame wars. So can anybody tell me now where it
was first claimed that it was Taliaferro's idea to add nephews to the lonely
Donald, and if the source is as trustable as Barks?
Frank
_________________________________________________________________
MSN Hotmail? - ?Absolut kostenfrei! Der weltweit gr??te E-Mail-Anbieter im
Netz: http://www.msn.de/hotmail
Timo Ronkainen
About popularity of creators
Message 268 -
2003-08-13 at 11:41:23
>- There were three Rosa's albums here in Poland and, so far, no Barks'
>albums :-(
No Barks collections? Huh.. I hope there'll be soon.
How long you have had Disney comics weekly in Poland now? And how long they
have printed credits?
>creator on my website a couple of months ago. Don Rosa won (45%), Barks was
>the second (18%), Vicar was the third (8%).
Did you have any other options? How many votes those other creators got?
Timo
^^''*''^^
Cartoonist - writer - donaldist -
Timo Ronkainen ---------------- -
YO-kyl? 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/
?? Kvaak-sarjakuvaportaali:
http://www.kvaak.fi
.................................
"Rumble on, buxom bumble bee!
Go sit on cowslip - far from me!"
_________________________________________________________________
MSN Messenger - kaikki yst?v?t klikkauksen p??ss?! Lataa t?st? ilmaiseksi.
http://www.msn.fi/viestintapalvelut/Messenger
>albums :-(
No Barks collections? Huh.. I hope there'll be soon.
How long you have had Disney comics weekly in Poland now? And how long they
have printed credits?
>creator on my website a couple of months ago. Don Rosa won (45%), Barks was
>the second (18%), Vicar was the third (8%).
Did you have any other options? How many votes those other creators got?
Timo
^^''*''^^
Cartoonist - writer - donaldist -
Timo Ronkainen ---------------- -
YO-kyl? 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/
?? Kvaak-sarjakuvaportaali:
http://www.kvaak.fi
.................................
"Rumble on, buxom bumble bee!
Go sit on cowslip - far from me!"
_________________________________________________________________
MSN Messenger - kaikki yst?v?t klikkauksen p??ss?! Lataa t?st? ilmaiseksi.
http://www.msn.fi/viestintapalvelut/Messenger
Gerd Syllwasschy
Huey, Dewey, Louie
Message 269 -
2003-08-13 at 12:18:46
Frank:
> Thanks Timo!
>
> That must have been the first really interesting post in about a dozen
> digests mainly consisting of flame wars.
I couldn't agree more. :-)
> So can anybody tell me now where it
> was first claimed that it was Taliaferro's idea to add nephews to the lonely
> Donald, and if the source is as trustable as Barks?
If my memory does not fail me, Taliaferro`s widow had something to say
about this in an interview conducted by Manfred H?rtel for his Donaldist
Sonderheft on Al Taliaferro. Maybe a German member who has this issue
handy can look it up?
Gerd
> Thanks Timo!
>
> That must have been the first really interesting post in about a dozen
> digests mainly consisting of flame wars.
I couldn't agree more. :-)
> So can anybody tell me now where it
> was first claimed that it was Taliaferro's idea to add nephews to the lonely
> Donald, and if the source is as trustable as Barks?
If my memory does not fail me, Taliaferro`s widow had something to say
about this in an interview conducted by Manfred H?rtel for his Donaldist
Sonderheft on Al Taliaferro. Maybe a German member who has this issue
handy can look it up?
Gerd
Gerstein, David DK - ECN
Characters' original names identified for Giles' family tree
Message 270 -
2003-08-13 at 12:46:11
Gilles,
In your duck family tree you refer to a ? McDuck: "this cousin of
Scrooge who is more stingy than him appeared in "Thrift Cometh Before
Pride"..."
I've just looked at this story, S 73075, in the original English.
The character's name is really Midas McDuck- and in the original version,
he's not really Scrooge's cousin, he's Scrooge's *uncle* ...so he must be
very, very old indeed...
Meanwhile, Daisy's cousin "Lapie" in S 77142 is really named Gandy.
And the recurring beggar cousin of Scrooge who looks like him-- the
character you translate from the Italian as "Nobucks" McDuck-- is really
named Moocher McDuck.
Best, David
In your duck family tree you refer to a ? McDuck: "this cousin of
Scrooge who is more stingy than him appeared in "Thrift Cometh Before
Pride"..."
I've just looked at this story, S 73075, in the original English.
The character's name is really Midas McDuck- and in the original version,
he's not really Scrooge's cousin, he's Scrooge's *uncle* ...so he must be
very, very old indeed...
Meanwhile, Daisy's cousin "Lapie" in S 77142 is really named Gandy.
And the recurring beggar cousin of Scrooge who looks like him-- the
character you translate from the Italian as "Nobucks" McDuck-- is really
named Moocher McDuck.
Best, David