Keskustelujen arkisto

Here's Sigvald again, trying to be positive:

> From what I have heard Egmont was originally offered this story, but
> rejected the offer because the price demanded for it was to
> high. Can this be correct?

Yes, it can be correct, if you spell "too high" correctly. 8-)

> I thought that Egmont usually pay a set amount of
> $ per page
> regardless of the complexity of the art and regardless of who
> has drawn the art.

That may be the case. And if that is the case, it explains why the demand price for "Somewhere in Nowhere" was too high for Egmont.

> Another question is if there is any connection between the price
> demanded for this story and Don Rosa's strike a few years
> later

There is no connection at all. I have the impression that you have no idea what Don's strike was about. (BTW, there's no need to go further into this matter. It's not relevant here anyway.)

> - as there
> obviously is no reason to pay Lustig/Block any better than Don.

Obviously? Can you explain how I should read this sentence, while also keeping in mind what you wrote: "I have been too critical towards too many artist/creators"?

And what about Barks? Why do you only mention "Lustig/Block" as people-to-be-paid for that story?

--Harry.

ARI SEPPI to me, 21-08-2003:

>> Jippes has inked two endings. Which version did they use?
>> The sweet ending, the cynical ending, or both?

> Both, the one used at the end of the story was the cynical
> and the sweet was included as illustration for an article
> about the story.

I understood that. But is it shown as being *INKED* by Jippes?

(If so, can someone put scans of both endings online?)

--- Dani?l

Dani?l:
>Was Jippes's inked version of the sweet ending not included? Only the
>sketches?

Both sketches and the inked version were used.

>I'm curious if someone has seen the inked sweet version.

So about one fifth of the Finnish population has seen it.

> > Both, the one used at the end of the story was the cynical
> > and the sweet was included as illustration for an article
> > about the story.
>I understood that. But is it shown as being *INKED* by Jippes?

How could you understand it before anybody mentioned it here ?-)

>(If so, can someone put scans of both endings online?)

If nobody else does before I can, I'll make the scan.

--
Ari Seppi (ari.seppi at iki.fi)
http://www.iki.fi/mani/

Psalutations again, Eta,

>Indeed, here's the 3 perturbating points :
> [2 points snipped]
>
>3. The company is planning a makeover of Mickey in order
> to restore the character to its rightful position (in
> their own way of thinking) of merchandising icon.
>
>It's especially point 3 that I'm worrying about, it seems to
>me that reprinting Gottfredson's stuff wouldn't fit with the
>concept of a "new image"

And there you might be wrong! (-:
The "new image" for Disney's Mickey is something that formally began
with the new Mickey TV cartoons in 1999. It is a return to the mischievous,
enthusiastic, adventurous Mickey of the 1940s- in short, a lot like
Gottfredson's Mickey!
I've seen this Mickey wearing his red shorts, fighting with Pete,
Mortimer, and the Blot in the new TV cartoons (you read that right... they
did animate the Blot!), so you shouldn't worry too greatly that Mickey is
going to be drastically transformed...
The "makeover" should really be just a greater attempt to make
Americans AWARE of this "new/classic" Mickey. What kinds of promotion this
will involve, I'm not aware of...

David

As far as I know, Disney writer Don Christensen is still alive. Can
anybody confirm this? And does anybody know where Christensen lives
these days?

Lars

Hi,
I'm unable to qutoe the messages since the digests has recently sent to my
email in one strong swoop, which is a good sign of healthy active
discussions.

Can anyone confirm that the English language used in the Egmont's mini
booklet has been altered from the original English version? The bilingual
version here has the english language altered in some areas. Some noticable
left-overs are: Goofy talks like normal characters, and small grammatical
errors ex: "What's it's all about?".

I am quite baffled by why they want to alter the original version but
amateur guess from me would be that they want to keep off "unsual" american
slangs from the stories and put in "verbally gramatically" correct
expressions and idioms.

Some of the list members have the bilingual edition i'm talking about. It
sure is a nice "trick" to print Disney stories in English. They regularly
printed a variation of Rota, van Horn, Vicar and one Rosa story. But the
altered dialogues really bugged me.

As for licensing strips:
Does this spesifically apply to Gemstone only or actually to ALL publishers
all over the not-so-round globe?

One of the list members pointed out the "Zorro" and "El Pollo" versions of
Don's 3 cabalerros story. Gary (or was it someone else?) pointed out that
it's a matter of licensing that they had to change the "Zorro" version. My
question is if licensing is the issue, shouldn't that apply to ALL
countries' versions too?

But i realized even if licensing issues apply to all countries, the other
countries will not pay much attention to such "small" licensing issues and
will probably chose to continue to print the strips, print the stories
without concerning "possible" licensing issues.

So basically Gemstone is quite pinned down because they have to care about
all this "legally" licensing stuffs while other publishers in other
countries can get away with printing something that might not pass in USA?

Keep On Quacking,
Arie Fachrisal who wants to say "Ni" to an old lady someday.

NILS KLARTEKST, 21-08-2003:

> Inspired by Olaf's success as a Disney writer, I sent a synopsis of
> a Scrooge story to Egmont. They liked it and want to put it into
> production!!!

Congratulations!

> Does anyone know if it has ever been established that Scrooge's coat
> has pockets? Have we ever seen him carry anything in his pockets?
> Have the pockets ever actually been shown in a Barks story?

I remember at least once instance. It's a Barks gag in which Scrooge
is feeding a horse (US 23-06). One of his pockets is clearly shown.

--- Dani?l