Keskustelujen arkisto

> Subject: Re: AW: Question on Walt Disney signatures
> Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2003 11:49:33 +0200
> From: "timo ronkainen" <timoro at hotmail.com>
> To: dcml at stp.ling.uu.se
>
> Looks like this never reached DCML. I post this one more time.
>
> Stefan:
> >There are two famous Disney signatures. Which of them are you talking
> >about?
>
> It was this one:
> http://www.geocities.com/timoro2/disneylogo.jpg
>
> I don't remember where I read about this, but this one was said to be
> designed by Porter.
>
> Timo
>

Thanks to all. I got a lot of information.
I have a lot of research to do based on your help.
I am really interested in finding out how widespread the practice was on
the early
signatures.
I'm trying to get the pre 1950 artists first.
What started my interest is that I found an ink and watercolor of Donald
Duck (gift given by Walt)
that was signed "Walt Disney" and on the back signed "By Al Taliaferro"
That was the first time I had seen a double signature.
I will let you know what I come up with.
Thanks,
Jeff

I've often thought that a fun subject for a story
could be the ducks trying to figure out their origin.
Maybe the prevalent notion in Duckburg is a
darwinistic one - simply everybody believes that the
ducks developed from the pterodactyls (I actually once
saw a daily strip in which Donald told the nephews
just that - a Taliaferro strip, perhaps?). That would
perhaps also explain why we never hear of temples of
worship in Duckburg: the inhabitants are simply not
religious.

But then some sort of Anti-Darwin could put forth the
revolutionary idea that the ducks were actually
created by gods, and everybody would start looking for
clues. For instance, why would the ducks use the base
10 number system when they have only eight fingers?
Isn't that some kind of clue that they have not been
shaped by evolution?

(After formulating this thought, it struck me: but
what if they ARE using the base eight system? Could I
actually remember ever having seen the digit s "8" or
"9" in a Barks story for instance? Not off the top of
my head, but I soon found some in "The Pixilated
Parrot". A shame - it would have been a very neat
inside joke if those two digits never appeared. (And
Scrooge would have been much less rich!))

I recall a Marco Rota story in which Barks' likeness
can be seen on a totem pole, so obviously _someone_
inside the duck universe already hit upon the right
idea :)

Kristian

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Protect your identity with Yahoo! Mail AddressGuard
http://antispam.yahoo.com/whatsnewfree

Daniel van Eijmeren <dve at kabelfoon.nl> wrote:

>> Also notice that I used the word "bad" in
>> order to get attention at DCML.
>
> You can be sure that I've noticed this comment,
> Sigvald! You just admit you have purposedly
> used negativity, in order to get attention...

Yes, but only to draw attention towards the *topic* - in that case the
overlapping panel style, not my person. I have sometimes posted serious
questions to DCML without getting any response, through that I have learned
that seriousity may not always be enough to draw attention towards an
interesting topic.

Sigvald

Oh yes, sure I will read with atention another interesting argument around
Sigvald... Ahoum!!
Could you gentlemen at least direct the mail for dcml at stp.ling.uu.se ?
I have a folder for this group and so is most easy to delete,
thanks

Fabio
(tiredsaurus rex)

> Sigvald:
>
> > Yes, but only to draw attention towards the *topic* - in that case the
> > overlapping panel style, not my person. I have sometimes posted serious
> > questions to DCML without getting any response, through that I have
learned
> > that seriousity may not always be enough to draw attention towards an
> > interesting topic.
>
> I think this is a wrong approach, Sigvald. We have several good
discussions on
> the DCML every day, all without insulting anyone.
>
> The truth can be pretty hard to swallow, but it often is that if you say
> something VERY interesting, and nobody answers - that is normally because
> others are not interested in the same things as you are. If people feel
that
> they have nothing to contribute with, they often remain silent.
>
> Take the "best Duck Tales episodes" discussion... I don't think anyone so
far
> has said anything bad. Someone started a discussion on DuckTales. Many has
> contributed to the discusson. I haven't - because I haven't watched much
> DuckTales and therefor I haven't much to say about DuckTales. Also, if we
count
> heads, I'm sure that more than 90% of the DCML still has not said anything
in
> that DuckTales discussion. Including you, Sigvald. Why is that? Because we
> don't feel we have anything to contribute with there.
>
> So, you're right - seriousity may not always be enough to draw attention
> towards a topic. But towards an interesting topic? Well, what is
interesting
> varies from person to person. In a discussion about the panel style in a
recent
> Fecchi story, many on the list will be in the position that they haven't
read
> this story. Others will be in the position that they don't have an opinion
> about this panel style. Some people are in the position that they don't
have
> the time to write to DCML. And many people DON'T answer a question if they
have
> nothing to contribute with.
>
> So, what interests you, MAY not interest everybody else. Which is why they
> don't answer you. It's as easy as that.
>
> It does NOT help to ask the same question in a very bad and insulting way.
Yes,
> you get more attention. But you don't get more attention towards the
question,
> you get more _negative_ attention towards yourself.
>
> Sigvald, to take this Fecchi thing.
>
> You wrote:
> "Seen isolated this person's drawings are OK, but the way they are
arranged on
> each page IMO make stories drawn by this person look awful in any Disney-
> magazine. This is because the panels are not arranged properly as in most
> Disney comics. In stead the panels seems to be randomly arranged and
sometimes
> with parts of one panel covering another panel - just like in modern
super-hero
> comics. Maybe this person thinks that using such a modern style is cool,
well I
> don't think so at all. Still most stories published in the "Donald Pocket"
> books look normal, and I hope they will look so in the future to. If this
IMO
> lousy Fecchi-style ever becomes the normal look of the stories in the
"Donald
> Pocket" books Egmont will loose me as a reader of those books, that's for
sure!"
>
> This wasn't even a discussion! You were *stating* that this was bad, using
> words like "bad", "awful" and "lousy".
>
> If you had written e.g.:
> "The panels in this story was arranged in a relatively unusual way for a
Disney
> comic - they're not lined up like panels use to be, but more scrambled,
almost
> randomly arranged, sometimes with parts of one panel covering another
panel -
> in other words, in a more modern style, like the one in many super hero
comics.
>
> What do you think of experimenting with the panel style in this way?
> Personally, I prefer panels to be lined up properly with white space
between
> them, like most other stories still have, but what do you think?"
>
> If you had written something like that - well, I can tell you for sure
that _I_
> would have given the same answer as I did this time. I assume Fernando,
> Jonathan and Matthew would have done the same - as we have opinions on
this,
> and is interested in discussing it. To make it clear: I answered you
because
> the topic was interesting me, NOT because it was written in a negative
way.
>
> As for more attention - well, the fact that you wrote this in such a
negative
> way, brought you more attention. E.g. you got a few responds from Dani?l.
I
> don't defend what Dani?l wrote - but he wrote that BECAUSE you wrote your
post
> in such a negative way. So, you're right - you got more attention by
writing it
> in a negative way, but is this really the kind of attention you want?
>
> Cheer up, Sigvald. Happy thoughts. If you write an interesting post in a
> serious way, and people don't answer you - that is NOT because your post
is too
> serious. That is because people don't think what you think is interesting
is
> interesting, or because they feel they have nothing to add. So, I think
the
> best for both you and the rest of the list will be if you go back to
writing
> serious posts.
>
>
>
> Olaf
> _______________________________________________
> http://stp.ling.uu.se/mailman/listinfo/dcml
>
>

This is just your usual reminder that any off-topic discussion may be
taken to:

http://www.dcml-talk.org

Cord

Rich Bellacera wrote:
>It was Don's idea to have Scrooges sister, Matilda, be married to
>Ludwig. This solves any real problem one might imagine.
>In this way he is legitimate "Uncle" to Donald and the Nephews, and
>could still be a "Brother(-in-Law)" to Scrooge.

Brilliant. How come I didn't think that? Thank you so much!

>However, speaking of "Brothers", there is one you forgot:
>"Gideon". A Romano Scarpa creation and "half?-"brother to $crooge.

I knew I forgot someone! Never write things if you're not perfectly sure...

>Some also make a case for Elvira "Grandma Duck" being his
>sister as well.

Yes, I know. Here in Finland all the people thought several years that
Elvira and $crooge are a sister and a brother. These translation-things remind
me happily from my couple misunderstandings.
Once Finnish U$ -pocket-size magazine had some history of Ludwig. There was
a part which said that Matilda and Ludwig had some romances in the past.
I got REALLY upset when I read this, because I thought that Ludwig was $crooge's
brother. I thought that Matilda&Ludwig together was something very dirty.
=) I almost took my pen and wrote to the mistake-making magazine. Thank goodness
the little $crooge McDuck inside of me told me how much the stamps cost.
I didn't send my comments. =))
Thank you Rich, thank you!

Regards
Lauri Jaakkola
---------
Times are tough, huh, bud.

_______________________________________________________________________
Parhaat hakupalvelut yhdess? osoitteessa: http://www.eniro.fi/

Suomalaisten yritysten tuotteet ja palvelut: http://yritykset.eniro.fi/

Sigvald wrote:

>I am *not* a physician nor a mathematician, but an historian who in his
>studies focused on the 1700th century.

You are?
Then you are in the position the answer the following question:

In Walt Disney's "The Scarecrow" comic books stories (Gold Key) from the
1960's, the action is taking place in England in the late 1700's.

In the story "The Scarecrow meets King George" (story code: W SCA 3-02,
published in the Norwegian "Walt Disney's M?nedshefte # 9/ 1968") we meet
King George III (the British Monarch 1760 - 1820).

Is the portrait given of King George in this comic book story accurate?

Giving you hereby a chance (but only ONE chance) - if you don't get the
message - to say something serious for once, because I totally agree with
Harry and Daniel about your mails in this forum!

Best,
Are Myklebust