Keskustelujen arkisto

>Ooops, looks like I have involuntarilly changed my name :-)
>and back to the topic: Does anyone know how many of these huge Best
>Comics volumes were made in English? are they all indexed?

I have the Best of Mickey Mouse volume and the Best of Donald Duck
volume. I understand there are also Best of Goofy and Best of Scrooge
volumes (and maybe a Best of Huey, Dewey, and Louie, but I'm not sure).
These albums were translated from English to Italian and then back to
English, so they differ somewhat from the original. The Barks stories
have dialogue almost identical to the dialogue in the US editions, but
the Gottfredson ones are more pared-down translations--except for the
Mickey in the Foreign Legion story in the Best of Mickey Mouse; for
whatever reason, that one seems to be pure Gottfredson in dialogue, etc.

It's a little bit off-topic, but I suppose a lot of list members will be
interested in these:

Last year Disney released a series of several film compilations on DVD
under the name "Walt Disney Treasures". Each set contained two DVDs full
of digitally restored Disney gems. I found most interesting:

+ Mickey Mouse in Black and White" - Contains the first MM cartoons
starting with "Steamboat Willie"; also has a commentary by Leonard
Maltin.
+ Walt Disney Treasures - Mickey Mouse in Living Color - MM color
cartoons
+ Walt Disney Treasures - Behind the Scenes at the Walt Disney
Studio - A collection of documentaries about the Disney studios.

The sets cost $ 32.99 ea had a print run of 125.000. Most are gone by
now and can only be bought on the secondary market for much higher
prices.

Soon there will be issued a second wave in this great series. I find
especially interesting:

+ The Chronological Donald, Volume 1 (1934 - 1941)
+ Walt Disney Treasures - On the Front Lines

Especially the "On the front lines" set sounds great: It promises to
contain the cartoons the Disney studios produced during WWII. Namely
"Victory Thru Air Power" and possibly "Der Fuehrer's Face" and
"Education for Death".

If Disney can release these (and they sell like crazy!) - why not also
allow reprints of the Gottfredson Mickey Mouse strips and uncensored
Barks stories? Could it be that there are still thos who believe that
"comics are for children" whereas the DVDs are for adults?

I posted a complete list of the DVDs released in the "Walt Disney
Treasures" series to

http://www.dcml-talk.org/read.php?f=1&i=175&t=175

Cord

timo ronkainen wrote:

> I just read a story (I TL 1308-B) published in Finnish Roope-setä mag
> 9/1985: Zio Paperone e il fumetto perfetto. Rockerduck has a comic
> book publishing company and he has all the best cartoonists there are.
> They are working in slave labor conditions in a basement. He pushes
> his artists and writers to the extreme limit and therefore gets
> hundreds of pages of comics made. Nice story about "industrial" way of
> making comics. Perhaps Giorgio Pezzin wrote this story to present his
> feelings about working for Disney? :-)

I've searched Inducks and couldn't find any pre-1986 comics written by
Pezzin for Disney. Did he do some other work for them?

Lars

Katie Sullivan wrote:

>> So what? Glittering Goldie also is a one-time Barks fenomenon.
>
> In the comics, true. But she popped up in an awful lot of his oil
> paintings.
> http://www.sullivanet.com/duckburg/barksoils/
> Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think any other character
> who appeared in only one of his stories has appeared in so many
> oil paintings. This would indicate to me that he thought her to
> be an important character--or at least an important symbol of
> his characterization of Scrooge (rough and grouchy on the
> outside, kind-hearted deep down.)
> But then I'm extremely biased in favor of her character, so
> don't mind me. ;)

I don't know much about Barks' oil paintings, but... Did he paint the
Goldie-oriented ones because he had a desire to use that character? Or
because the customers who ordered the paintings had asked for Goldie to
be included in them?

Lars

I only now got time to read Rich Bellacera's entire posting, so I'm a
bit late on addressing this.

Rich, I have to confess I'm a bit unsure of how to answer some of your
questions -- mainly because I don't know which continuity (or
"universe") you're referring to.

For instance, you write about Magica:

> Scrooge nemesis who wants his No.1 Dime as she believes it to be a
> talisman of great "luck."

Depends. If you're asking about Magica as seen in most Barks stories (or
in the current Danish-produced ones), then no, Magica wants the Dime
because Scrooge has touched it more times than any other coin. Melted
into an amulet, it will grant Magica the Midas Touch -- the ability to
transform base metals into gold.

If you're asking about the Duck Tales Magica or the Italian, Brazilian,
Dutch or French Magica, I wouldn't know the answer, though.

> She is probably the BEST known of Disney witches in comics.

To which several people started discussing whether she is a witch or a
sorceress and what the difference is. I've even seen people quoting
Barks to support their view that she is a witch.

The truth is, of course, that the two terms are used interchangably in
everyday life -- even by Barks. If you want an answer to your question,
though, I suggest we go with the definition of witches and sorceresses
Don Rosa gave: Witches are inherently magical beings that can make magic
just by waving their fingertips (or -- in my opinion -- thinking, even).
Sorceresses are (more or less capable) ordinary human beings who --
using spells, magic wands and so on -- can perform magic.

If we agree on this, then Barks' (and the current Danish) Magica is a
sorceress. The Italian (and the Duck Tales) Magica is a witch.

> Magica currently lives in an old shack on the side of Mount Vesuvius.
>
> At one time [Mim] and Magica were roommates in an old castle, but now
> they more commonly work seperately. Currently Mim lives in an old
> house in the forest.

I'm not sure where you get the "currently" and "at one time". Are we
talking about when the stories were published? If we are, then I'll
refer you to:

http://stp.ling.uu.se/pipermail/dcml/2003-July/023597.html .

Note that in American comic books Mim was living in an old house in the
forest, while she in S-coded stories produced *at the exact same time*
was living with Magica in a run-down castle.

It is true, though, that these days, in D-coded stories, Mim lives in
that forest house. And, in D-coded stories, Magica lives in that shack
on Mount Vesuvius.

> [Mim] occassionally teams up with the Beagle Boys, but more often
> encounters the forest characters like Big Bad Wolf and Brer Bear.

Actually, she has met the Beagle Boys far more often than Big Bad Wolf
or Brer Bear. And she isn't really used much with *any* of these
characters nowadays. In Denmark, at least.

> [Witch Hazel's] residence is unknown, but is presumably also somewhere
> in the forest.

Witch Hazel has most often been shown to reside on the witches' moon.

> Granny de Spell

Appears in the "castle stories" only. Different from Nonna Caraldina,
who appears in Italian stories.

> Minima appears to often visit Magica along with her grandmother.
> Nonna Caraldina? Another granny of Magica's?

Yep and yep.

> Samson Hex
> A young owl-boy who served as apprentice to Magica and Mim for a
> while. Has not been seen lately?

Sadly, no. A potentially great character but with some built-in
problems...

> Yensid the Sorcerer
> The Sorcerer from FANTASIA. Not used very much?

Nope. In my opinion, his performance in "Fantasia" was so outstanding,
he should be left alone, rather than be used in not-so-good stories.

> Merlin the Magician
> The Sorcerer from SWORD IN THE STONE, also not used very often, but
> his familiar, Archimedes the Owl, has been seen more often, even
> apparently living with Mim?

These days, in Denmark at least, Archie is *not* used with Mim -- if the
writer wants Mimsy to have a pet, he/she will use the cat Spitfire.

> Maybe W.I.T.C.H. would make a great animated series...

Rumor has it that Saban, under license, is working on this exact thing.

Olaf Solstrand wrote:

> I also remember a few Italian stories where we meet a grandmother, a
> niece and a fiance of Magica de Spell.

These are Nonna Caraldina, Minima De Spell and Rosolio.

Eta Beta wrote:

> I don't know whether Mim is used at all, these days...

Again, see this posting of mine:

http://stp.ling.uu.se/pipermail/dcml/2003-July/023597.html .

> I think [Bre'r Rabbit & Co] really live in the suburbia-like Swamp,
> with Bre'r Bear and Bre'r Fox sorta commuting).

In American and Danish stories, the swamp is part of the forest. Nobody
commutes anywhere. Also, I'm not sure what you mean by "suburbia-like".
The houses are not on streets; they are just randomly placed in the
forest. Dirt roads lead from one to another. We only rarely see cars.
Not much like a suburban environment.

By the way: No offense, but if you're going to use an apostrophe in
Brer, it should be "Br'er", not "Bre'r".

>> 4) Witch-Queen from Snow White
>> Another witch typically encountered in Forest-related stories.
>> Always evil. Not much used these days.
>
> And I'm convinced this has to be yet another Forest, possibly
> in yet another dimension... or we have to deal with a time-warp
> here, if we want to place the 7 dwarfs and the Wolves in the same
> environment...

The Witch and the Dwarfs have met the Wolves in several W-coded stories,
so they do indeed live in the same forest. In those stories, anyway.

Daniel van Eijmeren wrote:

> In at least one Barks story, Magica is permanently watched by two
> observers who are working for Scrooge.

Also in several D-coded stories. Up to this day.

> I *love* those stories and the zany, motionless way the characters are
> drawn [in the "castle stories"]!

"Motionless" is the key word here! Sure, some potentially fine
characters appear in these stories, but they are (in my opinion) rarely
allowed to shine.

> Sometimes I find it nice when the model-sheet is ignored. It gives a
> chance to explore new directions.

They usually didn't. That's the big problem with these stories. In my
opinion, obviously.

Rich Bellacera wrote:

> Mim and Hazel are "true" witches, I have seen them (well, moreso Mim)
> frequently refer to Spell books and use potions, so I'm not sure if
> that makes them Sorceresses, too (since their magic relies on sources
> outside themselves)?

See my Mim posting:

http://stp.ling.uu.se/pipermail/dcml/2003-July/023597.html .

I agree 100% on everything Don Rosa wrote about whether Magica is a
witch or a sorceress, including why she (for story purposes) should be
the latter, rather than the former.

One thing, though. Don, you write:

> she knows a spell that will enable her to melt that coin down to form
> an amulet which will give her the Midas Touch to create gold. But
> okay, that specific point is lost to history [...]

Nope, it isn't. I recently wrote a story which made it very clear that
getting the Midas Touch is her motivation. And since the entire ECN
backed up that view of her, this particular story point seems OK to use
these days.

Also, I think Pat McGreal mentioned the Midas Touch a few years ago.

> [Byron Erickson] said Egmont would eliminate the use of Magica as a
> "witch" who flew around on a broomstick. Now, has Egmont stuck to
> Byron's policy?

Not on the broom thing all the time. But it's still made very clear in
current Egmont stories that Magica doesn't have any inherent magical
powers. (Even stories that use the broom clarify that it can fly because
it's mechanical or has had a magical potion dumped on it.)

> They also told me that Fethry and Ludwig were "dead", but I have heard
> they are mighty lively as of late.

Ludwig is "dead"; Fethry lives, but only in a prescribed, small number
of stories.

Kriton Kyrimis wrote:

>> A witch (or warlock) is a supernatural being with inherent
>> supernatural/magical powers
>...
>> Anyone can
>> learn to become a sorcerer with great study of arcane knowledge found
>> through long examinations and translations of ancient tomes and lots
>> and lots of practice...
>
> it would seem to me that what you describe as the difference between a
> sorceress and a witch is that between an amateur and a professional.
> An amateur witch (a sorceress, by your definition) would be able to
> perform a spell or two, probably without real knowledge of what they
> are doing, while a professional witch, having studied *a lot* more
> (it's probably not a coincidence that witches are usually portraid as
> old) can perform a lot more magic than amateurs.

No, as Don said: By his definition of the words, a witch has inherent
magical powers -- they are a part of her. A sorceress is merely a (good
or bad) student of magic.

Lars

Olaf Solstrand wrote:

> I guess what I really want to discuss here, is: "Could one in 1984
> call oneself a barksist without knowing that Barks didn't think that
> Scrooge and Grandma were siblings?"

In my opinion: Yes.

> Have ANYONE heard from Rota on this siblinghood AFTER "Life of
> Scrooge" came?

No. But I know he likes Don Rosa's stories.

> Why did this relationship fall apart so easily when "Life of Scrooge"
> came?

Well, it didn't, necessarily. True, I haven't seen Scrooge and Grandma
referred to as siblings since LoS, but then I haven't seen their
relationship referred to *at all* since those stories came out.

And no wonder. Think back: How often was the relationship between
Scrooge and Grandma referred to pre-LoS?! Very very rarely. Perhaps the
reason there hasn't been any reference to the relationship since LoS
came out is because it hasn't been relevant to the stories made?

Besides, there are many theories out there: Scrooge and Grandma being
siblings, Scrooge and Grandma being cousins, the Barks/Rosa theory...
The waters are, in my opinion, muddied so much these days that I
personally prefer to just stay away from the whole thing. Maybe other
writers feel the same way?

Lars

Mads Jensen wrote:

"I just browsed a bit through INDUCKs, and noticed the dates for US 210 and
WDC 511, and then looked at the previous issues, and saw that there was a
gap of about 2 years. AFAIK the previous publisher was Whitman, and then
Gladstone. Have there been any other time out periods for American Disney
comics than this one and then from 1999 to 2003 ?

"It just seems weird to me that there could be a period from 1984 to 1986 as
comics must have been more popular at that time, than they seem to be now in
USA."

Comics WERE more popular at the time, but Whitman simply was unable to adapt
to the changes brought on by the new "Direct Market" for comics. They
continued to primarily market their product as a toy manufacturer would, and failed
to seize upon a (...pardon the pun, for those who get it) "Golden" opportunity.

True, there was a gap of about two years between REGULARLY PUBLISHED USA
Disney comics between Whitman and Gladstone Series I.

BUT, until 1999, there was never an entire year with no Duck and Mouse comics
published in the US. Bruce Hamilton released "Prestige Format" reprints of
"Disneyland Birthday Party" (...with a new cover by Barks, that was used for
the first CBL Hardcover set) and "Uncle Scrooge Goes to Disneyland" in 1985.
Both were also released in "Digest Size".

By doing do, Hamilton kept alive a streak of consecutive years going back to
1940 and WDC&S # 1. (...even further, if you count "Mickey Mouse Magazine").

So, thanks to the Walt Disney Company and its ridiculous legal machinations,
the period of 1999 thru mid-2003 has been the only sustained period in which
we Americans did not have our Duck and Mouse comics.

During those years, there were various movie adaptations published by Dark
Horse, and maybe others, like "Atlantis" -- so there might not have actually
been a single year where there were NO Disney comics of ANY kinds published in
the USA. I didn't care enough about this material to bother keeping track.

LONG LIVE GEMSTONE!!!

Joe Torcivia.