Daniël van Eijmeren wrote:
>>> [Glittering Goldie] popped up in an awful lot of [Barks'] oil
>>> paintings. http://www.sullivanet.com/duckburg/barksoils/ [...]
>>
>> 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?
>
> I don't know. But if so, Barks could have objected to using her.
>
> Maybe a variation of this question would be:
> Did Barks create the Duck-oriented stories because he had a desire to
> use these characters? Or because the editor who ordered the stories
> had asked for the Ducks to be included in them?
>
> Barks has often said that he'd rather would have drawn humans instead
> of ducks. So, according to the point you seem to be making, most of
> Barks's comic book work should also be put aside as "commissioned
> work".
>
> Well, is that really what you meant? :-)
Let me repeat the discussion up until your posting: Katie suspected
Barks of liking Goldie more than would be obvious from the fact that he
used Goldie in his comics only once. She based this belief on the
existence of relatively many Goldie-themed oil paintings by Barks. My
question was: Did Barks use Goldie in these paintings because he wanted
to see her again -- or because he was asked to use her by the buyers who
commissioned the paintings? If it's the latter, then Barks' repeated use
of Goldie in paintings doesn't tell us how he actually felt about her --
only what the buyers wanted him to paint. Which would mean that we
cannot conclude anything from her appearances in Barks' paintings.
Your response to this is still puzzling me, some 19 hours after I first
read it. You extrapolate a number of silly, outlandish and extremist
beliefs from my posting, imply strongly that this is what I believe and
then end your posting with a smiley.
I don't know whether you're having fun, want to make me angry or (for
whatever reason) are trying to make me look bad on a public message
board by suggesting I have the above opinions. No matter, so far you've
accomplished Objective 2.
Anyway, just in case your posting was meant to be serious:
1. Yes, Barks could have refused to use Goldie in his paintings, but
that's irrelevant to my posting.
2. Your idea of how Disney comics are produced (the editor asks the
writer to come up with a story -- and somehow stick the Ducks into the
action) is baffling, coming from somebody I know communicates with a
number of comics creators. Do you actually believe this is how writers
work?!
3. There is a world of difference between buyers commissioning a
painting and editors commissioning a story. They can't be compared the
way you do.
So, to sum up: No, I don't believe what you imply I believe. And, for
the future, don't try to suggest I have certain opinions, when you don't
actually know I have them.
Lars
Author
Topic: 200309
(480 messages)
Lars Jensen
Barks's Glittering Goldie paintings
Message 256 -
2003-09-12 at 19:44:20
Lars Jensen
Original secondary character's names in I TL 1308-B???
Message 257 -
2003-09-12 at 19:45:00
timo ronkainen wrote:
>>> 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?
>
> How odd. Here it is: http://coa.inducks.org/coa/c1/simp.php
>
> December 21, 1980 I TL 1308-B Uncle Scrooge: Zio Paperone e il fumetto
> perfetto (32 p.) 3-tier
> Plot & story: Giorgio Pezzin Art & ink: Sandro Zemolin
OK, now I understand. You've probably made the classic mistake (which I
have made myself a few times): Confusing Disney with the licensee.
When Pezzin wrote "Fumetto perfetto" he was working for Mondadori, at
the time the Italian producer of Disney comics. According to Inducks,
he, at the time, hadn't written any comics for the Disney company per
se. Which means that "Fumetto perfetto", if it *is* a satire on his
then-current working conditions, is probably aimed at Mondadori, rather
than Disney.
Lars
>>> 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?
>
> How odd. Here it is: http://coa.inducks.org/coa/c1/simp.php
>
> December 21, 1980 I TL 1308-B Uncle Scrooge: Zio Paperone e il fumetto
> perfetto (32 p.) 3-tier
> Plot & story: Giorgio Pezzin Art & ink: Sandro Zemolin
OK, now I understand. You've probably made the classic mistake (which I
have made myself a few times): Confusing Disney with the licensee.
When Pezzin wrote "Fumetto perfetto" he was working for Mondadori, at
the time the Italian producer of Disney comics. According to Inducks,
he, at the time, hadn't written any comics for the Disney company per
se. Which means that "Fumetto perfetto", if it *is* a satire on his
then-current working conditions, is probably aimed at Mondadori, rather
than Disney.
Lars
Lars Jensen
Homages to Non-Disney comics in Disney comics
Message 258 -
2003-09-12 at 19:45:41
Søren Krarup Olesen wrote:
>> On the other hand, there is of course the cavewoman Oona, whose name
>> is partly an homage to Alley Oop's girlfriend Ooola.
>
> Are you sure about that, or is that where the "partly" comes in? I've
> always thought that Oona was named after Stefan Printz-Påhlson's wife
> Unn...after all they wrote the first story featuring Oona.
Yes, yes and yes.
Lars
>> On the other hand, there is of course the cavewoman Oona, whose name
>> is partly an homage to Alley Oop's girlfriend Ooola.
>
> Are you sure about that, or is that where the "partly" comes in? I've
> always thought that Oona was named after Stefan Printz-Påhlson's wife
> Unn...after all they wrote the first story featuring Oona.
Yes, yes and yes.
Lars
H.W.Fluks
Dutch comic convention
Message 259 -
2003-09-12 at 19:46:46
Next week, two things coincide:
- there's a comic convention in Arnhem on September 20 and 21;
- Rob Klein is visiting Holland.
Rob, Roy (*), Dani?l, and I will be in Arnhem on Saturday or Sunday (we haven't decided yet).
If anyone else plans to come, it would be nice to have a meeting. And maybe a dinner (pizza or so) afterwards.
(I know there's also the "big" comic convention in Alphen aan den Rijn next month, and I'll be going there too, but Rob will be back in the States by then.)
--Harry.
(*) No, not Rob Roy. 8-)
- there's a comic convention in Arnhem on September 20 and 21;
- Rob Klein is visiting Holland.
Rob, Roy (*), Dani?l, and I will be in Arnhem on Saturday or Sunday (we haven't decided yet).
If anyone else plans to come, it would be nice to have a meeting. And maybe a dinner (pizza or so) afterwards.
(I know there's also the "big" comic convention in Alphen aan den Rijn next month, and I'll be going there too, but Rob will be back in the States by then.)
--Harry.
(*) No, not Rob Roy. 8-)
Luca Boschi
Butlers
Message 260 -
2003-09-13 at 01:44:18
Maybe my e-mail don't arrive to the list. Surely I don't receive many of
'em...
So...
Hi, David and Rich,
Dave says:
> Edgerton never appears again, after this single story, until his later
> use by Don Rosa (in the 1990s!). Do keep that in mind.
> I think any similarity in appearance between Battista and Edgerton is
> purely coincidental. I might be convinced otherwise if Edgerton were
> translated with the name Battista in the early Italian editions of "Bear
> Mountain", but I don't have those editions to check. (Italians? Want to help
> me here?)
Yeah. His Italian name is FIRMINO, and not Battista (a "traditional" name
for an Italian butler; for example, in this way was even called the actor
Giulio Marchetti, starring a "pirate butler" in the very famous,
kids-oriented TV musical show "Giovanna la nonna del Corsaro Nero"
("Johanna, Black Buccaneer's Grandma"). Marchetti's Battista was on TV from
1962 on, created by the Italian satirical writer Vittorio Metz, a sort of
Wodehouse writing for the cinema, who might had Jeeves in his mind.
Scrooge's taxy driver, in the same story, is called Giacomo.
But you know that from the 50es, ALL Scrooge's butlers (also the bull-dog
faced one drawn by Perego or Pier Lorenzo De Vita) were called "Battista".
>
> I might agree with you here if anyone had used Edgerton after 1947. But
> no; Edgerton simply appears in that one story and was totally forgotten
> afterward. Other butlers did appear as one-offs and a few of them did look
> sort of like Duckworth, too: it's just as likely that Duckworth is inspired
> by those butlers as by the original Edgerton.
Yeah. And in recent italian translations, their "new" name is Battista as
well.
Best, Luca
'em...
So...
Hi, David and Rich,
Dave says:
> Edgerton never appears again, after this single story, until his later
> use by Don Rosa (in the 1990s!). Do keep that in mind.
> I think any similarity in appearance between Battista and Edgerton is
> purely coincidental. I might be convinced otherwise if Edgerton were
> translated with the name Battista in the early Italian editions of "Bear
> Mountain", but I don't have those editions to check. (Italians? Want to help
> me here?)
Yeah. His Italian name is FIRMINO, and not Battista (a "traditional" name
for an Italian butler; for example, in this way was even called the actor
Giulio Marchetti, starring a "pirate butler" in the very famous,
kids-oriented TV musical show "Giovanna la nonna del Corsaro Nero"
("Johanna, Black Buccaneer's Grandma"). Marchetti's Battista was on TV from
1962 on, created by the Italian satirical writer Vittorio Metz, a sort of
Wodehouse writing for the cinema, who might had Jeeves in his mind.
Scrooge's taxy driver, in the same story, is called Giacomo.
But you know that from the 50es, ALL Scrooge's butlers (also the bull-dog
faced one drawn by Perego or Pier Lorenzo De Vita) were called "Battista".
>
> I might agree with you here if anyone had used Edgerton after 1947. But
> no; Edgerton simply appears in that one story and was totally forgotten
> afterward. Other butlers did appear as one-offs and a few of them did look
> sort of like Duckworth, too: it's just as likely that Duckworth is inspired
> by those butlers as by the original Edgerton.
Yeah. And in recent italian translations, their "new" name is Battista as
well.
Best, Luca
Kimba1962
DCML Digest, Vol 7, Issue 29 (Duckworth & Bean Works)
Message 261 -
2003-09-13 at 01:55:11
JOE TORICIVIA wrote:
> I'm surprised no one has mentioned it yet, but Duckworth did appear in
> William Van Horn's "Snore Losers", from Disney Comics' DONALD DUCK
>ADVENTURES #5
> (OCTOBER, 1990). I'd imagine this was his only appearance outside of actual
> DUCKTALES comics.
Duckworth also appeared at least once in the DONALD DUCK newspaper strip. In
the Sunday strip of April 5, 1992, he appears in two panels. There is no
question as to his i.d., as Donald addresses him by name.
HARRY FLUKS wondered:
> In the Van Horn story in Gemstone's UNCLE SCROOGE #320, there's a van
driving by
> with the text "Barat's Bean Works".
>
> Is this a coincidence, or is there a connection between William Van Horn and
> (letter writer, indexer, and DCML member) Chris Barat?
Yes. I have exchanged letters with WVH and he was kind enough to put my name
in TWO stories. The first time, however, it was "Barat's Hats." At the time,
he didn't know that my last name rhymes with "rot," rather than "hat."
Chris Barat
> I'm surprised no one has mentioned it yet, but Duckworth did appear in
> William Van Horn's "Snore Losers", from Disney Comics' DONALD DUCK
>ADVENTURES #5
> (OCTOBER, 1990). I'd imagine this was his only appearance outside of actual
> DUCKTALES comics.
Duckworth also appeared at least once in the DONALD DUCK newspaper strip. In
the Sunday strip of April 5, 1992, he appears in two panels. There is no
question as to his i.d., as Donald addresses him by name.
HARRY FLUKS wondered:
> In the Van Horn story in Gemstone's UNCLE SCROOGE #320, there's a van
driving by
> with the text "Barat's Bean Works".
>
> Is this a coincidence, or is there a connection between William Van Horn and
> (letter writer, indexer, and DCML member) Chris Barat?
Yes. I have exchanged letters with WVH and he was kind enough to put my name
in TWO stories. The first time, however, it was "Barat's Hats." At the time,
he didn't know that my last name rhymes with "rot," rather than "hat."
Chris Barat
SBHSN
To Cord, re Disney Treasures DVDs
Message 262 -
2003-09-13 at 06:07:04
Hi, Cord (and everyone)
This years' Treasures are actually the third set of releases.
The first year's titles:
Mickey Mouse in Living Color, Silly Symphonies, Disneyland USA, and Davy
Crockett. (The latter two are not animated features, obviously.)
The second year had only three titles:
Mickey Mouse in Black & White, The Complete Goofy, and Behind the Scenes at
the Walt Disney Studios (the latter includes The Reluctant Dragon).
The third year was mentioned by Cord already. There are four titles this
year, and I can't find the list. Cord mentioned two: Mickey in Color vol.2, and
war years (sorry the title escapes me). Also planned are the Complete Donald
Duck, and Tomorrowland classics (which I believe may include Ward Kimball's Man
in Space TV shows).
These are two DVD sets with notes and/or commentary by film critic Leonard
Maltin, and are packaged in metal containers with a serial number embossed under
the inlayed image on the front. I don't know if 125,000 copies is really a
limited edition, but they seem to vanish quickly after release.
Back to lurk mode, and off to Disneyland for vacation...
Steve in Austin
This years' Treasures are actually the third set of releases.
The first year's titles:
Mickey Mouse in Living Color, Silly Symphonies, Disneyland USA, and Davy
Crockett. (The latter two are not animated features, obviously.)
The second year had only three titles:
Mickey Mouse in Black & White, The Complete Goofy, and Behind the Scenes at
the Walt Disney Studios (the latter includes The Reluctant Dragon).
The third year was mentioned by Cord already. There are four titles this
year, and I can't find the list. Cord mentioned two: Mickey in Color vol.2, and
war years (sorry the title escapes me). Also planned are the Complete Donald
Duck, and Tomorrowland classics (which I believe may include Ward Kimball's Man
in Space TV shows).
These are two DVD sets with notes and/or commentary by film critic Leonard
Maltin, and are packaged in metal containers with a serial number embossed under
the inlayed image on the front. I don't know if 125,000 copies is really a
limited edition, but they seem to vanish quickly after release.
Back to lurk mode, and off to Disneyland for vacation...
Steve in Austin
Don Rosa
DCML Digest Issue 29
Message 263 -
2003-09-13 at 09:26:30
I think I see some matters here that I can help with.
Blum's stories based on Barks plots, and the use of Blackheart/Grandpa
Beagle: When Blum asked me for copies of some of my personal correspondence
with Barks, it was for use in a study he said he was making of Barks'
correspondence. There were several story ideas that Barks offered to me in
those letters (plots that I had not requested, but he was probably always
concocting story ideas in his mind). I had no plans to use either of the
plots I recall... one involved finding frozen mammoths with golden tusks (I
didn't know how the mammoths would grow golden tusks) and the other was this
one that involved the Beagles stealing $crooge's #1 Dime and how he would go
on to still be successful and "realize that the Dime was not the basis for
his luck" -- I would never have used that idea, either, since I have always
made it clear that $crooge does *not* consider the Dime responsible for his
success (though I sometimes show that he values it as inspiration, which
might be how Blum handled the idea, I dunno, I haven't received this issue
yet). I don't recall telling Blum that *he* could use the ideas that Barks
was privately giving to me... at the time he requested the letters, about 10
years back, he was not a storywriter. But since I had no plans to do
anything with the idea, it's good that someone did. Anyway, the mammoth
idea, as I recall, was only one sentence, and the #1 Dime idea was only a
few sentences longer, but included no details like supporting characters
like Grandpa Beagle.
As for my own use of Grandpa Beagle, it is correct to say I created a "new"
character by meshing the character that Barks used in the steamboat race and
the "Grandpa Beagle" in "The Money Well". I'm sure Barks never either
decided these were the same character or two different characters... it
would have made no difference to his intentions. He was not trying to make
any strong continuity between any two stories, he had no reason to, his
concept was that these comics would be bought, read once, then discarded. It
made no difference to him if these were the same character or not. He would
never guess that fans and future writer/artists would enjoy studying and
playing with his creations, or that I might come along and interpolate his
"universe" to make it all coherent just for the fun of the game.
Another thing: I would think that Barks' intention in the steamboat story
was that Blackheart Beagle is the current BB's *father*, not grandfather. I
think the mustachioed BB's in that story are intended to be THE Beagle Boy's
of current stories. I don't think Barks was trying to construct such a
complex time frame system or familial relations as I was when I decided that
those BB's in the Mississippi days could not be the same ones in current
stories. Just as I interpolated Blackheart to be Grandpa, I interpolated the
steamboat-race BBs to *not* be the current BB's because that could not have
fit into my overly analytical view.
As regards Barks' choice of subjects for paintings: as someone said, all of
those paintings were done on request. The buyer would say generally what
characters and activities he desired, or exactly what story scene or cover
recreation he was paying Barks to create. And later, when the paintings were
done for big auctions and/or lithographs, the ideas were a product of
several minds trying to think what would be the most popular with the
buyers. I mean, it seems it was quite a science, there had to be all 5
Ducks, faces turned at just the right angle, etc. I don't think Barks had
any preference as to what characters he painted... he painted what his
friends or buyers wanted. No, he did not paint the scenes because he loved
the characters and still wanted to be drawing/painting them after he
retired... no one imbued him with a love for these characters as he did for
millions of us. To him it was a job, and a job (writing/drawing stories)
that he did sensationally well. If he had *especially* liked Glittering
Goldie, he would have found a reason to use her more than once. She appears
in a number of paintings because those Yukon days (and Goldie!) are a
favorite with fans.
Does it mean anything if Barks liked a certain one of his own characters
more or less than we readers do? Nah. Some of my favorite movie directors
choose as their worst films just the ones I love the most of their work!
That's neat!
Or look at me at a convention: I'll sit sometimes for 7 to 10 hours nonstop
drawing for fans. Do I do it because I like drawing? No, I *hate* drawing! I
know some cartoonists like Jim Engel or Sergio Aragones who LOVE to draw 24
hours a day, filling private sketch books "just for fun" -- that mystifies
me! I detest drawing but I like to tell stories. I draw for the fans because
it pleases me to please them, and I draw what they ask for (as long as it's
not perverse or nuts). If they left it up to me, I'd draw them ALL pictures
of Glittering Goldie. But if they want Daisy (usually "for my 3-month old
daughter") I'll draw Daisy even though I'd rather be slapped with a wet
oolated squigg.
Blum's stories based on Barks plots, and the use of Blackheart/Grandpa
Beagle: When Blum asked me for copies of some of my personal correspondence
with Barks, it was for use in a study he said he was making of Barks'
correspondence. There were several story ideas that Barks offered to me in
those letters (plots that I had not requested, but he was probably always
concocting story ideas in his mind). I had no plans to use either of the
plots I recall... one involved finding frozen mammoths with golden tusks (I
didn't know how the mammoths would grow golden tusks) and the other was this
one that involved the Beagles stealing $crooge's #1 Dime and how he would go
on to still be successful and "realize that the Dime was not the basis for
his luck" -- I would never have used that idea, either, since I have always
made it clear that $crooge does *not* consider the Dime responsible for his
success (though I sometimes show that he values it as inspiration, which
might be how Blum handled the idea, I dunno, I haven't received this issue
yet). I don't recall telling Blum that *he* could use the ideas that Barks
was privately giving to me... at the time he requested the letters, about 10
years back, he was not a storywriter. But since I had no plans to do
anything with the idea, it's good that someone did. Anyway, the mammoth
idea, as I recall, was only one sentence, and the #1 Dime idea was only a
few sentences longer, but included no details like supporting characters
like Grandpa Beagle.
As for my own use of Grandpa Beagle, it is correct to say I created a "new"
character by meshing the character that Barks used in the steamboat race and
the "Grandpa Beagle" in "The Money Well". I'm sure Barks never either
decided these were the same character or two different characters... it
would have made no difference to his intentions. He was not trying to make
any strong continuity between any two stories, he had no reason to, his
concept was that these comics would be bought, read once, then discarded. It
made no difference to him if these were the same character or not. He would
never guess that fans and future writer/artists would enjoy studying and
playing with his creations, or that I might come along and interpolate his
"universe" to make it all coherent just for the fun of the game.
Another thing: I would think that Barks' intention in the steamboat story
was that Blackheart Beagle is the current BB's *father*, not grandfather. I
think the mustachioed BB's in that story are intended to be THE Beagle Boy's
of current stories. I don't think Barks was trying to construct such a
complex time frame system or familial relations as I was when I decided that
those BB's in the Mississippi days could not be the same ones in current
stories. Just as I interpolated Blackheart to be Grandpa, I interpolated the
steamboat-race BBs to *not* be the current BB's because that could not have
fit into my overly analytical view.
As regards Barks' choice of subjects for paintings: as someone said, all of
those paintings were done on request. The buyer would say generally what
characters and activities he desired, or exactly what story scene or cover
recreation he was paying Barks to create. And later, when the paintings were
done for big auctions and/or lithographs, the ideas were a product of
several minds trying to think what would be the most popular with the
buyers. I mean, it seems it was quite a science, there had to be all 5
Ducks, faces turned at just the right angle, etc. I don't think Barks had
any preference as to what characters he painted... he painted what his
friends or buyers wanted. No, he did not paint the scenes because he loved
the characters and still wanted to be drawing/painting them after he
retired... no one imbued him with a love for these characters as he did for
millions of us. To him it was a job, and a job (writing/drawing stories)
that he did sensationally well. If he had *especially* liked Glittering
Goldie, he would have found a reason to use her more than once. She appears
in a number of paintings because those Yukon days (and Goldie!) are a
favorite with fans.
Does it mean anything if Barks liked a certain one of his own characters
more or less than we readers do? Nah. Some of my favorite movie directors
choose as their worst films just the ones I love the most of their work!
That's neat!
Or look at me at a convention: I'll sit sometimes for 7 to 10 hours nonstop
drawing for fans. Do I do it because I like drawing? No, I *hate* drawing! I
know some cartoonists like Jim Engel or Sergio Aragones who LOVE to draw 24
hours a day, filling private sketch books "just for fun" -- that mystifies
me! I detest drawing but I like to tell stories. I draw for the fans because
it pleases me to please them, and I draw what they ask for (as long as it's
not perverse or nuts). If they left it up to me, I'd draw them ALL pictures
of Glittering Goldie. But if they want Daisy (usually "for my 3-month old
daughter") I'll draw Daisy even though I'd rather be slapped with a wet
oolated squigg.
Timo Ronkainen
Original secondary character's names in I TL 1308-B???
Message 264 -
2003-09-13 at 13:29:55
>OK, now I understand. You've probably made the classic mistake (which I
>have made myself a few times): Confusing Disney with the licensee.
Oops, indeed. Mondadori was producing D-comics then.. Yep. Sorry.
How were these characters translated in other countries?
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 a cowslip - far from me!"
_________________________________________________________________
MSN Messenger - kaikki yst?v?t klikkauksen p??ss?! Lataa t?st? ilmaiseksi.
http://www.msn.fi/viestintapalvelut/Messenger
>have made myself a few times): Confusing Disney with the licensee.
Oops, indeed. Mondadori was producing D-comics then.. Yep. Sorry.
How were these characters translated in other countries?
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 a cowslip - far from me!"
_________________________________________________________________
MSN Messenger - kaikki yst?v?t klikkauksen p??ss?! Lataa t?st? ilmaiseksi.
http://www.msn.fi/viestintapalvelut/Messenger
Daniel Van Eijmeren
Barks's Glittering Goldie paintings
Message 265 -
2003-09-13 at 14:12:23
LARS JENSEN to me, 12-09-2003:
> Let me repeat the discussion up until your posting: Katie suspected
> Barks of liking Goldie more than would be obvious from the fact that he
> used Goldie in his comics only once. She based this belief on the
> existence of relatively many Goldie-themed oil paintings by Barks. My
> question was: Did Barks use Goldie in these paintings because he wanted
> to see her again -- or because he was asked to use her by the buyers who
> commissioned the paintings? If it's the latter, then Barks' repeated use
> of Goldie in paintings doesn't tell us how he actually felt about her --
> only what the buyers wanted him to paint. Which would mean that we
> cannot conclude anything from her appearances in Barks' paintings.
Okay, I see.
> Your response to this is still puzzling me, some 19 hours after I first
> read it. You extrapolate a number of silly, outlandish and extremist
> beliefs from my posting, imply strongly that this is what I believe and
> then end your posting with a smiley.
You're taking my email way too hard. So hard that it gets offensive and
painful. Please stop that.
> Anyway, just in case your posting was meant to be serious:
I was having fun, *and* I was serious. So are most of my emails.
> 2. Your idea of how Disney comics are produced (the editor asks the
> writer to come up with a story -- and somehow stick the Ducks into
> the action) is baffling, coming from somebody I know communicates
> with a number of comics creators. Do you actually believe this is
> how writers work?!
What is the difference with reality, according to you?
Here are some of my thoughts on this subect:
Egmont would not accept a Disney story without Disney characters. Egmont
does ask artists to come up with stories involving Disney characters. And
I think that they at least do have a desire for certain artists handling
certain characters. Would Egmont be happy if artists like William Van Horn,
Daan jippes, and Don Rosa decide to make Bucky Bug stories, instead of Duck
stories?
(I'm just taking Egmont as an example. I could also mention the Dutch
editor and artists like Mau Heymans and Bas Heymans. Etc.)
> 3. There is a world of difference between buyers commissioning a
> painting and editors commissioning a story. They can't be compared
> the way you do.
For the painting "Pleasure in the Treasure" (72-02), Barks could paint
anything he wanted. Still, the painting was commissioned. I think this is
comparable with how Western requested stories from Barks. For example, in
the early 1950s, when Western found out that WDC-comics were more popular
with Barks stories in it, Barks was put on the job of creating ten-pagers
again. In a manner of speaking, Barks was just an employee. Maybe a very
important employee, but still Western decided what Barks would do and what
he would not do. Just look at the butchered Barks-stories, for example.
("Trick or Treat", "Back to the Klondike", "The Madcap Mariner", "Mythtic
Mystery", etc.)
--- Dani?l
"Please, please, mister McDuck! Don't take my washing machine!
I need it to support my husband and three son-in-laws!"
(Which Barks story?)
> Let me repeat the discussion up until your posting: Katie suspected
> Barks of liking Goldie more than would be obvious from the fact that he
> used Goldie in his comics only once. She based this belief on the
> existence of relatively many Goldie-themed oil paintings by Barks. My
> question was: Did Barks use Goldie in these paintings because he wanted
> to see her again -- or because he was asked to use her by the buyers who
> commissioned the paintings? If it's the latter, then Barks' repeated use
> of Goldie in paintings doesn't tell us how he actually felt about her --
> only what the buyers wanted him to paint. Which would mean that we
> cannot conclude anything from her appearances in Barks' paintings.
Okay, I see.
> Your response to this is still puzzling me, some 19 hours after I first
> read it. You extrapolate a number of silly, outlandish and extremist
> beliefs from my posting, imply strongly that this is what I believe and
> then end your posting with a smiley.
You're taking my email way too hard. So hard that it gets offensive and
painful. Please stop that.
> Anyway, just in case your posting was meant to be serious:
I was having fun, *and* I was serious. So are most of my emails.
> 2. Your idea of how Disney comics are produced (the editor asks the
> writer to come up with a story -- and somehow stick the Ducks into
> the action) is baffling, coming from somebody I know communicates
> with a number of comics creators. Do you actually believe this is
> how writers work?!
What is the difference with reality, according to you?
Here are some of my thoughts on this subect:
Egmont would not accept a Disney story without Disney characters. Egmont
does ask artists to come up with stories involving Disney characters. And
I think that they at least do have a desire for certain artists handling
certain characters. Would Egmont be happy if artists like William Van Horn,
Daan jippes, and Don Rosa decide to make Bucky Bug stories, instead of Duck
stories?
(I'm just taking Egmont as an example. I could also mention the Dutch
editor and artists like Mau Heymans and Bas Heymans. Etc.)
> 3. There is a world of difference between buyers commissioning a
> painting and editors commissioning a story. They can't be compared
> the way you do.
For the painting "Pleasure in the Treasure" (72-02), Barks could paint
anything he wanted. Still, the painting was commissioned. I think this is
comparable with how Western requested stories from Barks. For example, in
the early 1950s, when Western found out that WDC-comics were more popular
with Barks stories in it, Barks was put on the job of creating ten-pagers
again. In a manner of speaking, Barks was just an employee. Maybe a very
important employee, but still Western decided what Barks would do and what
he would not do. Just look at the butchered Barks-stories, for example.
("Trick or Treat", "Back to the Klondike", "The Madcap Mariner", "Mythtic
Mystery", etc.)
--- Dani?l
"Please, please, mister McDuck! Don't take my washing machine!
I need it to support my husband and three son-in-laws!"
(Which Barks story?)
Daniel Van Eijmeren
Election in Duckburg
Message 266 -
2003-09-13 at 21:10:09
ERLAND HEIR, 10-09-2003:
> I have recently read a Barks story, where $crooge, standing in
> a park, speaking to a crowd, tries to be elected.
This is the story in which Scrooge is city treasurer candidate (US 8).
> Anyone here who knows how many times (and witch Barks stories)
> $crooge and Donald has tried to be elected and does anybody of
> them ever succeed?
In "The Heedless Horseman" (US 66), Scrooge enters a horse into the
Great Crystal Orb Derby. The winning horseman gets to rule Duckburg's
social life for a whole year, and is treated as 'King' of Duckburg
(including a crown, cloak, throne, household, and limousine). Scrooge's
reason for entering the horse race is that millions of people never heard
of Scrooge McDuck, except for the bankers and burglars. He wants to crash
the hall of fame. The entrance clerk even phones the cooky jar, to ask
if there's an escapee named Scrooge McDuck.
This is not really an democratic election, though. And maybe that's
the irony of it. I'm wondering if there's a political joke included.
<SPOILER>
Scrooge didn't get to be king for a year, but he did get to be
well known. His name is on everybody's lips. As the jerk who ruined
horse racing in Duckburg, to be exactly.
</SPOILER>
--- Dani?l
> I have recently read a Barks story, where $crooge, standing in
> a park, speaking to a crowd, tries to be elected.
This is the story in which Scrooge is city treasurer candidate (US 8).
> Anyone here who knows how many times (and witch Barks stories)
> $crooge and Donald has tried to be elected and does anybody of
> them ever succeed?
In "The Heedless Horseman" (US 66), Scrooge enters a horse into the
Great Crystal Orb Derby. The winning horseman gets to rule Duckburg's
social life for a whole year, and is treated as 'King' of Duckburg
(including a crown, cloak, throne, household, and limousine). Scrooge's
reason for entering the horse race is that millions of people never heard
of Scrooge McDuck, except for the bankers and burglars. He wants to crash
the hall of fame. The entrance clerk even phones the cooky jar, to ask
if there's an escapee named Scrooge McDuck.
This is not really an democratic election, though. And maybe that's
the irony of it. I'm wondering if there's a political joke included.
<SPOILER>
Scrooge didn't get to be king for a year, but he did get to be
well known. His name is on everybody's lips. As the jerk who ruined
horse racing in Duckburg, to be exactly.
</SPOILER>
--- Dani?l
Daniel Van Eijmeren
OT (Oops--CarmenG's blank message)
Message 267 -
2003-09-13 at 21:33:02
CARMEN G., 11-09-2003:
> Hello, and my apologies for the blank mailing a couple of days ago.
> [...] But--this blank message received more response than my usual
> dull postings, so what does THAT say about me?!!
Your "dull postings" are so interesting and popular, that any
transmission failure that might avoid their delivery, causes lots of
panic, stress, and sleepness nights. The response you got was just a
small reflection of that.
> By the way, Daniel, I think we corresponded privately a couple of
> years ago...? I'm trying to remember....
Yes, we have corresponded from time to time.
--- Dani?l
> Hello, and my apologies for the blank mailing a couple of days ago.
> [...] But--this blank message received more response than my usual
> dull postings, so what does THAT say about me?!!
Your "dull postings" are so interesting and popular, that any
transmission failure that might avoid their delivery, causes lots of
panic, stress, and sleepness nights. The response you got was just a
small reflection of that.
> By the way, Daniel, I think we corresponded privately a couple of
> years ago...? I'm trying to remember....
Yes, we have corresponded from time to time.
--- Dani?l
Daniel Van Eijmeren
OT (female duck fans)
Message 268 -
2003-09-13 at 21:59:03
THERESA WIEGERT to CORD WILJES, 12-09-2003:
> But generally, perhaps geekyness is a male trait - coming to think
> of it, not so many of my female friends are obsessed about a certain
> thing like men often can be. I wonder why...
Hrmphf! Go bother Oprah Winfrey with these strange female thoughts! :-)
--- Dani?l
"Men! I hate 'em!"
-- Esmeralda, Miss Moosey's parrot (WDC 63)
> But generally, perhaps geekyness is a male trait - coming to think
> of it, not so many of my female friends are obsessed about a certain
> thing like men often can be. I wonder why...
Hrmphf! Go bother Oprah Winfrey with these strange female thoughts! :-)
--- Dani?l
"Men! I hate 'em!"
-- Esmeralda, Miss Moosey's parrot (WDC 63)
Daniel Van Eijmeren
Disney animation links / Disney Urban Legends link (OT)
Message 269 -
2003-09-13 at 23:45:30
Walt Disney Animation Archive / Magical Ears Walt Disney Animation Archive
http://animationarchive.net/
http://www.magicalears.com/films/animation/index.php
Mistakes in Disney Animated Movies
http://www.magicalears.com/films/animation/Info/oopsies.php
Disney Urban Legends
http://www.snopes2.com/index.html
These links are taken from:
http://members3.boardhost.com/DisneyComics/
This email is a follow-up of my Disney site-tips of 11 September 2003:
http://stp.ling.uu.se/pipermail/dcml/2003-September/024919.html
http://stp.ling.uu.se/pipermail/dcml/2003-September/024920.html
--- Dani?l
http://animationarchive.net/
http://www.magicalears.com/films/animation/index.php
Mistakes in Disney Animated Movies
http://www.magicalears.com/films/animation/Info/oopsies.php
Disney Urban Legends
http://www.snopes2.com/index.html
These links are taken from:
http://members3.boardhost.com/DisneyComics/
This email is a follow-up of my Disney site-tips of 11 September 2003:
http://stp.ling.uu.se/pipermail/dcml/2003-September/024919.html
http://stp.ling.uu.se/pipermail/dcml/2003-September/024920.html
--- Dani?l
Daniel Van Eijmeren
Lemming behaviour, as in The Lemming With the Locket (US 9)
Message 270 -
2003-09-14 at 02:32:50
On the Disney section of a site titled "Urban Legends Reference Pages"
(http://www.snopes.com/disney/films/lemmings.htm), I found some
information about the natural behaviour of lemmings, which contradicts
the lemming behaviour as shown in (for example) Barks's "The Lemming
With the Locket" (US 9). I'm curious for comments.
Here's the text of the page, including some (IMO) disturbing information
about lemmings being misused for a film:
- - - - - - -
White Wilderness
Claim: During the filming of the 1958 Disney nature documentary White
Wilderness, the film crew induced lemmings into jumping off a cliff and
into the sea in order to document their supposedly suicidal behavior.
Status: True.
Origins: Lemming suicide is fiction. Contrary to popular belief, lemmings
do not periodically hurl themselves off of cliffs and into the sea.
Cyclical explosions in population do occasionally induce lemmings to
attempt to migrate to areas of lesser population density. When such a
migration occurs, some lemmings die by falling over cliffs or drowning
in lakes or rivers. These deaths are not deliberate "suicide" attempts,
however, but accidental deaths resulting from the lemmings' venturing into
unfamiliar territories and being crowded and pushed over dangerous ledges.
In fact, when the competition for food, space, or mates becomes too intense,
lemmings are much more likely to kill each other than to kill themselves.
<Picture: I'm not gonna jump off. YOU jump off!>Disney's White Wilderness
was filmed in Alberta, Canada, which is not a native habitat for lemmings
and has no outlet to the sea. Lemmings were imported for use in the film,
purchased from Inuit children by the filmmakers. The Arctic rodents were
placed on a snow-covered turntable and filmed from various angles to
produce a "migration" sequence; afterwards, the helpless creatures were
transported to a cliff overlooking a river and herded into the water. White
Wilderness does not depict an actual lemming migration -- at no time are
more than a few dozen lemmings ever shown on the screen at once. The entire
sequence was faked using a handful of lemmings deceptively photographed to
create the illusion of a large herd of migrating creatures.
Nine different photographers spent three years shooting and assembling
footage for the various segments that comprise White Wilderness. It is not
known whether Disney approved or knew about the activities of James R. Simon,
the prinicipal photographer for the lemmings sequence.
Nature documentaries are notoriously difficult to film, as wild animals are
not terribly cooperative. Many nature shows and films of this era -- including
Disney's "True-Life Adventure" movies and TV's Wild Kingdom -- staged events
to capture exciting footage for their audiences. The sight of a few lemmings
mistaking a lake or ocean for a stream and drowning after swimming out too far,
or being pushed over a cliff during the frenzied rush of migration, has become
the basis of a widespread belief that lemmings commit suicide en masse when
their numbers grow too large.
Last updated: ? 27 February 1996
The URL for this page is http://www.snopes.com/disney/films/lemmings.htm
Urban Legends Reference Pages ? 1995-2003
by Barbara and David P. Mikkelson
This material may not be reproduced without permission
Sources:
Burnam, Tom. ? More Misinformation.
New York: Lippincott & Crowell, 1980. ? ISBN 0-690-01685-9 ? (p. 140).
Charle, Suzanne. ? "Television; Hunting Wildlife with a Movie Camera."
The New York Times. ? 13 March 1988 ? (p. B31).
Corry, John. ? "'Cruel Camera', About Animal Abuse."
The New York Times. ? 24 March 1986 ? (p. C18).
Ferry, Jon. ? "Lemmings Commit Mass Murder, Not Mass Suicide."
Reuters. ? 6 March 1992.
Foreman, Judy. ? "How & Why."
The Boston Globe. ? 7 March 1994 ? (p. 30).
Maltin, Leonard. ? The Disney Films.
Crown: New York., 1984. ? ISBN 0-517-55407-0 ? (pp. 148-149).
Poundstone, William. ? Bigger Secrets.
Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co., 1986. ? ISBN 0-395-53008-3 ? (pp. 235-236).
Sagi, Douglas. ? "Scientists Demolish Lemming Legends."
The Vancouver Sun. ? 21 February 1992 ? (Diary; p. D2).
- - - - - - -
--- Dani?l
(http://www.snopes.com/disney/films/lemmings.htm), I found some
information about the natural behaviour of lemmings, which contradicts
the lemming behaviour as shown in (for example) Barks's "The Lemming
With the Locket" (US 9). I'm curious for comments.
Here's the text of the page, including some (IMO) disturbing information
about lemmings being misused for a film:
- - - - - - -
White Wilderness
Claim: During the filming of the 1958 Disney nature documentary White
Wilderness, the film crew induced lemmings into jumping off a cliff and
into the sea in order to document their supposedly suicidal behavior.
Status: True.
Origins: Lemming suicide is fiction. Contrary to popular belief, lemmings
do not periodically hurl themselves off of cliffs and into the sea.
Cyclical explosions in population do occasionally induce lemmings to
attempt to migrate to areas of lesser population density. When such a
migration occurs, some lemmings die by falling over cliffs or drowning
in lakes or rivers. These deaths are not deliberate "suicide" attempts,
however, but accidental deaths resulting from the lemmings' venturing into
unfamiliar territories and being crowded and pushed over dangerous ledges.
In fact, when the competition for food, space, or mates becomes too intense,
lemmings are much more likely to kill each other than to kill themselves.
<Picture: I'm not gonna jump off. YOU jump off!>Disney's White Wilderness
was filmed in Alberta, Canada, which is not a native habitat for lemmings
and has no outlet to the sea. Lemmings were imported for use in the film,
purchased from Inuit children by the filmmakers. The Arctic rodents were
placed on a snow-covered turntable and filmed from various angles to
produce a "migration" sequence; afterwards, the helpless creatures were
transported to a cliff overlooking a river and herded into the water. White
Wilderness does not depict an actual lemming migration -- at no time are
more than a few dozen lemmings ever shown on the screen at once. The entire
sequence was faked using a handful of lemmings deceptively photographed to
create the illusion of a large herd of migrating creatures.
Nine different photographers spent three years shooting and assembling
footage for the various segments that comprise White Wilderness. It is not
known whether Disney approved or knew about the activities of James R. Simon,
the prinicipal photographer for the lemmings sequence.
Nature documentaries are notoriously difficult to film, as wild animals are
not terribly cooperative. Many nature shows and films of this era -- including
Disney's "True-Life Adventure" movies and TV's Wild Kingdom -- staged events
to capture exciting footage for their audiences. The sight of a few lemmings
mistaking a lake or ocean for a stream and drowning after swimming out too far,
or being pushed over a cliff during the frenzied rush of migration, has become
the basis of a widespread belief that lemmings commit suicide en masse when
their numbers grow too large.
Last updated: ? 27 February 1996
The URL for this page is http://www.snopes.com/disney/films/lemmings.htm
Urban Legends Reference Pages ? 1995-2003
by Barbara and David P. Mikkelson
This material may not be reproduced without permission
Sources:
Burnam, Tom. ? More Misinformation.
New York: Lippincott & Crowell, 1980. ? ISBN 0-690-01685-9 ? (p. 140).
Charle, Suzanne. ? "Television; Hunting Wildlife with a Movie Camera."
The New York Times. ? 13 March 1988 ? (p. B31).
Corry, John. ? "'Cruel Camera', About Animal Abuse."
The New York Times. ? 24 March 1986 ? (p. C18).
Ferry, Jon. ? "Lemmings Commit Mass Murder, Not Mass Suicide."
Reuters. ? 6 March 1992.
Foreman, Judy. ? "How & Why."
The Boston Globe. ? 7 March 1994 ? (p. 30).
Maltin, Leonard. ? The Disney Films.
Crown: New York., 1984. ? ISBN 0-517-55407-0 ? (pp. 148-149).
Poundstone, William. ? Bigger Secrets.
Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co., 1986. ? ISBN 0-395-53008-3 ? (pp. 235-236).
Sagi, Douglas. ? "Scientists Demolish Lemming Legends."
The Vancouver Sun. ? 21 February 1992 ? (Diary; p. D2).
- - - - - - -
--- Dani?l