Keskustelujen arkisto

In Barks' early stories he associated the ducks with the Disney studios
where
he had worked, located in Burbank, California, USA. Thus, Burbank was
mentioned in several stories. He then decided it best that these fictional
characters should have their own fictional home, so he based them in Duckburg;
in "The Magic Hourglass", we see Duckburg is a large city. Then in "The
Guilded Man" he needed a state for Duckburg, and named the fictional state
of Calisota, but still part of the USA. Although Scrooge may have many
foreign coins, most stories are concerned with his USA money. We long
wondered how Scrooge could earn his first dime (an American coin) while still
a boy in Scotland, so Don Rosa developed that in his story. Scrooge's
1916 quarter in "Atlantis (US5)" is certainly also an American coin.
Even in Don Rosa's story, "His Magesty McDuck", Scrooge is still concerned
with acquiring more American money through tax refunds of the federal
USA government---as head of an independent country, Scrooge argues that
he didn't owe those taxes. Unfortunately, Scrooge never realized that as
monarch of an independent country, he could create his own money!
In a later Barks story, "Treasure of Marco Polo (US64)", Barks seems to
consider Duckburg an independent country! On Page 6, panel 6, Scrooge
says "But I'm a Duckburgian citizen!" And on page 9, panel 2, he says
"There's the Duckburgian embassy! I'm going in and demand protection!"
Indeed, the flag on this building has a duck on an otherwise blank field; it's
not a USA flag. Are there other Barks stories where the ducks are not
considered USA citizens? I was quite perturbed to see Scrooge proclaiming
himself a Duckburgian citizen in this story.

I'm fascinated by the diversity of answers and responses to issues like
where Duckburg is, what language the characters speak, and how old the
nephews are. Admittedly, I was being a little flippant when I talked about
Scrooge and Donald being expatriates. My real, honest to goodness, definite
thought on the issues is this: they're questions we mortals should not
attempt to answer!

Seriously, part of the beauty of the Disney comics world is how much is left
up in the air. This is true of many licensed characters. It's a GOOD thing
we don't know 100% how old any of the characters are exactly, what year
they're living in, where exactly Duckburg is, and how strange races of
little people know what the ducks are saying. These things leave the doors
open for different writers to bring their experiences and imagination to
their tales. When we get to nailing down really specific details, that
limits future creation. This is often why early seasons of long-running
television programs are really exciting and the later shows stink. In early
shows, you find out all about the characters, but later on there are no more
bits of character to reveal. I think part of the reason that the comics
have lasted for so many years is due in part to the open-endedness of the
characters.

The fact of the matter is that Barks would occasionally contradict himself.
Furthermore, did he ever bring up the idea of "Callisota" in a story after
"The Gilded Man"? Am I remembering incorrectly, or did Barks imply in an
interview or two that nailing down specifics wasn't necessarily a good idea?

Finally, can we really establish a hard "cannon" for the comics? I think
most of us would agree Barks is THE best, and he created many, many
characters as well as just the town of Duckburg. But there are
contradictions between his early work and his later work. Plus, I don't
think we can 100% dismiss the contradictions between the cartoons and
Barks's work--even though Barks's comics are almost indisputably better.
And while Rosa (who is indeed gifted) has thrilled us time and time again
with his intense knowledge of and devotion to the Carl Barks world, does
this mean that "facts" in his stories override information shared in an
excellent Van Horn or Scarpa tale? I personally want to be able to watch
the cartoons and read the work of other creators without stressing over
breaks in continuity.

My basic point is this: the comics are better in the long run if we have a
very fluid and changing sense of what is fact. Writers and artists should
be left room to create their own worlds and fill in their own details to at
least some extent.

Matthew A. Williams

I forget the title of the DT episode in which this was mentioned (it was the
one in which Scrooge contracts a case of loot lice), but Huey, Dewey, and
Louie are explicitly established as being ten years old.

("Yipee! We broke the law!")

Now. How old is Donald?

-Yossi

In a message dated 10/22/2003 6:06:08 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
dcml-request at stp.ling.uu.se writes:
> On DuckTales, I'd peg HD&L at about "Age 9" and Webby at "Age 7".

No, HD&L are only one Yer older thean Webby (See "Duck Tales" episode "Bubba
Big Brain Storm")

Rich Bellacera wrote:

> I know that traditionally Disney acknowledges Mickey's birthday as
> being the same date as the release of his first film [...]

OK, I'm grumpy right now. You have all been warned.

I don't really understand this discussion -- I fail to see why it would
be puzzling that fictional characters' birthdays are celebrated on the
same day they debuted in print or on screen. I suppose somebody could
decide that Mickey's birthday was, say, October 1st, but what would be
the point? October 1st doesn't mean anything to Mickey fans; November
18th does.

> [...] Donald's accepted Birthday.
> Some hold that it coincided with his film debut in "The Wise Little
> Hen"
> Hence: June 9, 1934
>
> But others say it is said to have fallen on Friday the 13 of April,
> May, June or October of 1944 or 1945 as derived from the film "The
> Three Caballeros"
>
> Then again, there is an explicit reference by Freddy Milton who said
> his Birthdate is: March 13, 1949
>
> Italian comics are split on either: September 16, 1934 or June 9,
> 1934.
>
> And Don Rosa has indicated it was sometime in 1920.
>
> Me, I'm totally confused!

It's a fictional character. Donald doesn't really have a birthday. As
I'm sure others have written, though, most of these dates make sense in
the context of various films and comics, be it content or time of
publishing (or first screening). Why is this confusing? Again: We're not
talking about a real-life person.

> MINNIE MOUSE: She debuted the same time as Mickey, so, it might also
> be Nov. 18, 1928. But, somehow, that doesn't seem fair as they are
> not twins.

I'm sure a lot of babies were born on the same day I was. That doesn't
necessarily mean any of them are my twins, though. Why can't Minnie's
birthday be the same as Mickey's?

Lars

Just remembered that, in TERRIBLE TOURIST, Donald threatens to complain
to "the Duckburgian Consul." So much for the alteration theory.

________________________________________________________________
The best thing to hit the internet in years - Juno SpeedBand!
Surf the web up to FIVE TIMES FASTER!
Only $14.95/ month - visit www.juno.com to sign up today!

At 12.01 22/10/2003 +0200, Lars Jensen <lpj at forfatter.dk> wrote:

>I see the Italian character OK Quack hasn't been used much the last
>ten years.

His last story was I TL 2082-1 ("Zio Paperone e la minaccia spaziale")
written by Fabio Michelini and drawn by Giorgio Cavazzano. That was eight
years ago. But three years later he made a "cameo" appearance in I TL
2234-5 ("La grande corsa Paperopoli-Ocopoli") written by Luca Boschi and
drawn by Enrico Faccini.

> Did he ever find his spaceship and return to his home planet

Never

>or is he (in theory) still searching for it?

Oh, yes, he is! ;-)

Marco

http://www.cce.unifi.it/~marcobar/Comics

Lars wrote that Donald doesn't really have a birtday, and I tend to
agree. There are (at least) two "birthdays" involved here: The first
feature of the character, which I prefer to call anniversary (although
it's "f?dselsdag" (="birthday") in Danish too), and secondly the
character's "fictional birthday".

So, when Don writes that Donald *has* a hat and an uncle, then yes, but
that would be a "fictional hat" and a "fictional uncle". A real hat is
something a human being can put on his head, and Donald has no such thing.

Rich seems confused by the various dates given for Donald's birth, but
that's only because he (I guess) tries to match the anniversary date
with some fictional dates given by various artists.

It's like wondering how Harrison Ford today (2003) can be in his 50s,
when he surely looks much younger in Starwars, which we all know happens
in far future.

S?ren

S?ren:

> It's like wondering how Harrison Ford today (2003) can be in his 50s,
> when he surely looks much younger in Starwars, which we all know happens
> in far future.

Actually, given that Star Wars takes place "once upon a time, in a galaxy far
far away", it is only appropriate that he would be younger back then!

Kriton (e-mail: kyrimis at cti.gr)
-----
"...E equals M C cubed..."
"Squared!"
"What?"
"E equals M C squared, not cubed!"
"Not in the extra-temporal physics of the time vortex!!!"
-----