Keskustelujen arkisto

Sigvald:

>>> Recently some of my favourite Barks characters the Terries and Fermies
>>> ("Land Beneath the Ground" was one of the very first long Barks tales
that I
>>> ever read) have been mentioned here on DCML.

One of my favorite stories too. It's the first Gladstone comic (with a
cover by Don Rosa) that I found, in 1994; I had only a very faint memory of
this story (mostly that it was good); this comic put me on trh trail of
Gladstone's comics, adn I visited their office the next year, to buy the
Micky Mouse in Color book, and subscriibe to the on-going WDC&S and DDA
libraries.

>>>AFAIK Barks intended them to be colored with one color only,
>>>and that would be with the color of the surrounding rocks -
>>>just like the Square eggs in "Lost in the Andes" - why
>>> else would our Duckburgian friends mistake them for being rocks?

That's what I thought too. Since they're very nice in those bright colors in
Gladstone's issue, I colored my Terry-Fermy smileys that way too, but I also
made gray and brown versions for realism's sake.

Olivier

Rich, there also is a pig called "Spotty Pig".

He appears in Silly Symphony #2 from 1953:
http://coa.inducks.org/coa/c1/story.php/0/W+SS++++2-07

I'm not sure, but he probably also appears in some Sunday pages,
The Farmyard Symphony from October 23 - November 27, 1938:
http://coa.inducks.org/coa/c1/story.php/0/ZS+38-10-23//_

which *probably* is the same story as the film
http://coa.inducks.org/coa/c1/story.php/0/QMS+1938-014//_

In Mickey Mouse Magazine #40 (issued in Jan 1939) there's a story
"Spotty the Greedy Little Piglet", which might be a reprint of the Sunday
pages.

Perhaps David Gerstein can check if all 4 occurrences is the same character.

Kjell

FRANK BUBACZ to me, 31-08-2003:

>> [Trick Or Treat, DD 26, 32-page version] BTW. Is Donald also sceptical
>> towards witches in the animated "Trick or Treat"? Or is it something
>> that Barks put into his comic boom version?

> Apart from the first encounter between Donald and Hazel, when Donald
> thinks she is a child in disguise, there's no hint in the animated
> short that he doesn't believe she's a witch. He just acts rebellious,
> because Hazel hurt his pride.

On page 7, Donald shortly believes that Hazel is a fake witch with a
rubber nose. Page 8 to 10 show the making of the witch brew. From page 11
to 12, Donald is wondering what is going on outside. ("A paint brush
without a painter?" Etc.) At the end of page 13, he concludes: "WITCHCRAFT!
That's what it is!" Donald gets frightened, but page 15 he's offended by
being called a "pushover" and becomes rebellious. I guess this all follows
the same path as in the cartoon?

It takes 13 pages before Donald is convinced that he faces a real witch,
though there's only one encounter where he really clearly expresses that.
(Counting from this first encounter on page 7, it "only" takes 7 pages of
preparation and action to convince Donald. Phew!)

> For those who are interested, here is a list of Barks' own ideas he
> added to the storyboard he got (I'm referring to the original
> 32-pages-version of the comic): [...]

Thanks for this thorough comparison! It's very useful!

--- Dani?l

"Witch, goblin, pretty girl - I wonder what's out there now?"

OLIVIER to me, 01-09-2003:

>> [Land Beneath the Ground, US 13] Barks's answer seems to be
>> surprisingly simple. In a 1980s idea sketch "Which Disney Themepark
>> Is This?" (one out of three), the underground pillars and structures
>> *also* are coloured. In a glowing green, lightbrown, and purple.

> The bright colors sure look a lot nicer in the comics and the
> paintings. The Terry-Fermies may very well blend in the background if
> [the underground] stones are brightly colored too. But when the ducks
> first see them, it's on the surface, and they don't notice them.

Yes, of course. You're right!

> I guess a simple and realistic answer is that they look a dull stone
> color in the sun, and phosporescent in the dark.

Or maybe they have chameleon skins, so their colours adjust to the rock
structures that surrounds them. This kind of camouflage might help them
survive in dangerous situations, like travelling to the Earth's surface.

I don't know if there have been colourists who have followed such a
theory, though.

> Hm, imagine that in a movie: a dark cave, with phosphorescent stones
> everywhere; there's just enough light for you to see; and those strange
> tie-wearing creatures appear, their dark & phosphorescent shapes dimly
> visible. Could be pretty creepy.

Great description!

CORD WILJES, 01-09-2003:

> P.S.: Sorry for the confusion my automated farewell mail may have
> caused. I awoke too late to keep it from being sent.

Nevermind! I'm glad you are back! I was so worried! (Sob! Sob! Sob!)

--- Dani?l, who (according to Cord) has at least 20 more years to go

P.S. Release Kriton! Sign the petition! Buy "Release Kriton!" shirts,
so we buy some flowers to cheer him up in that moldy jail!

Quoting Ola Martinsson <Ola.Martinsson at ericsson.com>:

> What does D D and D/D mean ?

The extra D stands for "development" (or a similar word) and is used in stories
where the writer and/or artist is relatively new in Egmont and is still...
developing.

Unless I'm completely wrong, "D D" and "D/D" are the exactly same thing,
where "D/D" is the code used in magazines, while "D D" is used in INDUCKS.

I'm sure you will find much better answers than mine if you take a search for
it in the DCML archives, as this has been up several times before.

Recommended reading: D/D 2001-013, D/D 2002-009, D/D 2002-020 and D/D 2003-
022 :-)

Olaf the Blue-screen
(Dani?l, you were kidding, right? You don't have my photo as your desktop
background, do you?)

In the Swedish weekly the danish codes are mostly D XXXXX
But in some stories the code is D D xxxxx or D/D xxxxx

What does D D and D/D mean ?

Ola in Stockholm

Hi!
I still need the original names of the following characters:

- Vic Lockman and Mike Aren's "Why All the Crabby Ducks?" (W DD 136-01,
1971):
arelative of Donald, called "Tapfou" in French, and "Fjollerik And" in
Danish.

- Strobl and Lockman's "The Doony Desert Dilemma" (W DD 116-05, 1968):
A cousin of Scrooge, called Degenhart Duck in German.

- Jack Bradbury's "Farm Education" (S 63051, "Topolino" #423, 1964):
Donald's cousin who lives in a farm, called "Grandavoine" in French and
"F?tter Farmer" in Danish.

If anybody can help, that'd be cool
Gilles
http://goofy313g.free.fr/calisota_online/

DON ROSA to me, 30-08-2003:

>> I agree that Peeweegahs and Awfultonians could be real existant
>> people. But what is the clear difference between supernatural
>> beings and Terries, Fermies, and Larkies?

> You can accept little square people (Awfultonians) but not little
> round people (Terries/Firmies)?

I can accept *both* of them. I wasn't debunking the story. I just found
the idea of Terries and Fermies causing earthquackes rather odd. Barks
normally explains "anomalies with scientifically provable hogwash."
This story seems to do the opposite. But then, why not. I'm beginning
to the see the beauty of the story. (Despite the cuts. Who knows what
more the story may have contained!)

> As I said, these Barks characters are certainly all impossible in the
> real world, but they are not depicted as magical or supernatural...
> the Peeweegahs, Awfultonians, Terries/Firmies were weird comicbook
> beings who apparently evolved into their forms due to some separation
> from the rest of the world into remote and isolated regions. The Larkies
> flew because they had wings, not because they had magic broomsticks.
> These are "natural" beings (though admitted they are of a comicbook
> "natural"). A supernatural being would be... Santa Claus.

But then, I don't see the difference between a Terries and Fermies causing
an earthquacke, and an old white-bearded extravagant philantrophic giving
away Christmas presents all over the world.

Reasons:

Santa Claus might have made a fortune. (During the gold rushes, to mention
just a wild example.) It might be strange that he's still "alive" today,
but there's also the "Ghost Sherrif of Last Gasp" (WDC 176). That sherrif
amazingly managed to taste everlasting life, just by *hiccuping*. And
"That's No Fable" (US 32) contains another easy solution for everlasting
life, if one could only find it back.

Santa's reindeer buggy could be a high-speed motorized one. And if not,
then Barks's severely cut-up and destroyed would-have-been-masterpiece
"Mythtic Mystery" (US 34) shows a scientifically intended flying golden
chariot, on which "Thor" is really breaking up storms in the stratosphere,
with his hammer and chariot act, with four horses up front. This chariot
resembles Santa's buggy with the reindeer, as in shown "A Letter to Santa"
(CP 1). And Santa's reindeer could even be robots, like the horses in "The
Heedless Horseman" (US 66). Rudolf's red nose could then be a lightbulb.

Maybe Santa has the knowlegde of duplicating himself, like Gyro Gearloose
is working with teleportation in "Stranger Than Fiction" (WDC 249). If a
person can be electronically transmissed along beams of cosmic rays, then
I'd say that signal can also be multiplied, giving twice the output, or
more. And if a signal can be electronically enchanted, it can also be
transformed into bigger and smaller signals. So, this might explain how
Santa is doing those "foing" and "shrink" tricks in "A Letter to Santa".
And why not? Flickus, Flackus, Fumdeedledum! :-)

I think the most difficult part of explaining Santa Claus's "existance" is
finding out WHY on Earth this man is GIVING AWAY presents to people, and to
kids in particular. :-) Maybe he's just some kind of reversal version of
Scrooge's character, being a rich philantrophic instead of a rich tightwad.
(And Scrooge can do almost anything impossible with his money. Except for
building a money stairs on a mountain, of course.)

What I'm trying to say is that the existance of Santa Claus might be
explained and proven, using comparable examples from Barks stories.
So, in that light, Santa is not "supernatural" to me. Santa Claus indeed
seldomly visually appears in Barks's stories, especially given the many
Christmas stories Barks has made. This might indeed say something about
his fondness of the character, but he *did* write at least one story in
which he referred to Santa's existance. In the submarine christmas story
(WDC 172), an initially hard-hearted Scrooge arranges christmas presents
for the sleeping nephews, who have just sweetly accepted that Santa Claus
will never find them aboard of Scrooge's submarine on Christmas Eve. After
having plowed through the black seas for fifty miles, Scrooge gets the
presents aboard by airplane delivery. An amazed Donald concludes that
Scrooge gave up his chance to find the Cuspidoria just to get these
presents for the kids and him. Scrooge puts on radar-phones, so he doesn't
have to listen to Donald's gushing. And then the radar-phones suddenly
start buzzing... The Cuspidoria turned out to be fifty miles nearer shore
than she was reported to Scrooge, *exactly* the distance Scrooge had to
travel to get his nephews Christmas presents. That could be coincidence
- just like "The Golden River" (US 20) could be coincidence - but once
again Scrooge doesn't want to listen to such talks. Instead, he concludes:
"And don't tell me that Santa Claus didn't lead me RIGHT to her side!"

In this Barks story Scrooge, Donald, and the nephews, believe in Santa.
And I'm willing to believe them. I think they should know, having access
to the Junior Woodchuck Guidebook. But that's a matter of taste and vision,
of course.

BTW. I hope I don't sound as poking fun at your explanation. I intend
these ideas to be "Barks-inspired" story solutions. It means a lot of fun
and escapism for me, so that's what you might see shining through.

> The Easter Bunny.

The Easter Bunny doesn't need to be supernatural, either. Just take two
of Gyro's think boxes (WDC 141), a soft-hearted rabbit that likes to play
hide-and-seek, and a basket full of eggs. That's all. Gyro can even make
a dog talk (WDC 152), you'll get one for free if you say he can't! :-)

> Casper the Dead Baby. See? I don't know how else to explain it.

Yup. According to his name, Casper the Friendly Ghost is indeed a
supernatural ghost. This is clear. He might just be a flying raven in
a kilted cage, instead of a ghost, as in "Mystery of the Ghost Town
Railroad" (US 56), but I got your point. :-)

>> About ghosts. Would you use ghosts in your stories?

> I've done so on several occasions. I will again. I already said
> that I LIKE ghost stories.

I should have known that. I was just wondering where you draw the lines
between what you find possible in your stories, and what not. But I won't
be surprised if you - or anyone else - would find that a rather abstract
question to actually ask. I don't even know where I would draw the lines
myself. One day I criticize Terries and Fermies, and then the other day
I suddenly discover that I begin to like them. :-)

> Of course it is! I *said* I am ready and willing (and perhaps even
> eager) to use supernatural ideas in my stories even though Barks
> seemed to avoid it.

I agree that Barks seemed to avoid "real" ghosts. Examples of that would
be the Pizen Bluff story (US 26), and the earlier mentioned Ghost Town
Railroad story (US 56). The Ducks are willing to believe that ghosts
exist, but they find counter-proofs. The "Lost Peg Leg Mine" (DD 52-02)
also seems to be such a story, but there the debunking is less clear.

The only inherently magical "supernatural" Barks character I can think of
is Gladstone Gander. Gladstone seems to have powers by default, without
needing a wand, or even ancient knowledge. He only needs to put out his
hand, and mostly even less. If Gladstone doesn't perfom magic, it's still
something that's as close as can be. (IMO)

> "My" Kalevala characters performed impossible, magical feats, appearing
> and disappearing at will into an extra-dimensional reality. Larkies
> lived on a remote mountain having cooking contests and flew around
> because they had wings.

Yes, that's indeed quite a difference.

> I still recall a frustrating conversation 'way back in my college days
> with someone who just couldn't understand why scientists would explore
> the possibility of large sea creatures in Loch Ness or the so-called
> "abominable snowmen" in the Himalayas, but they were not investigating
> the existence of werewolves in the suburbs or vampires at the all-night
> grocery. I could not get through to him. He had "supernatural" logic.

Investigating Hollywoord creations and Bram Stoker's Dracula, other than
in archives would indeed be silly, though this made-up legend seems to
lure more and more people into actually believing it... That's quite
confusing. (And I find it very scary if the media have such remarkable
effects on people.)

Werewolves and vampires do seem to have roots in reality, though. There
are people who have a disease that fully covers them with hair. And
vampires seem to have been inspired by people with a skin-disease that
would make the gums in their mouth bleed, as an allergic reaction to
daylight. I don't know if that "vampire" disease can be cured, at least
there are still people who have a sunlight allergy, even the smallest rays
will cause severe blisters. I think they, and the "werewolve" people would
love an investigation of their pharmaceutically uninteresting disease.

And I've yet to see the first abominable snowman or Loch Ness creature
waving at a (proper) camera... What exactly is real? What exactly is
supernatural? What has been made-up? And what exactly is impossible?
Will we ever know?

> There's never been a truer axiom than "you can't please everyone, so
> don't even try". I just follow Frank and "dooooo it myyyyyy waaaayyyyyyy".

"The sound cracked the mirror!... Brother! That's QUALITY!"

(Which Barks story?) :-)

--- Dani?l