There are many gags about Gyro's fees for his services being ridiculously low. I always thought his main concern was to just be able to work on whichever idea pops out of his head before it begins to stagnate, and be able to have the resources available to pull it off. If he can keep working and live well comfortably in order to pull off his inventions then there's no problem.
And as for Launchpad, I always thought of him more as a parody of the Indiana Jones "making-it-all-up-as-I-go-on-an-adventure" character rather than as "Donald's replacment." He doesn't even make his first appearance in the Ducktales pilot until the adventure with Scrooge and Donald in the Andes mountains. A better argument could be made about Fenton Crackshell as a replacement for Donald than Launchpad.
Joseph Adorno
Author
Topic: 200312
(236 messages)
Jadorno
Gyro Gearloose's self-awareness
Message 106 -
2003-12-17 at 19:39:47
Daniel Van Eijmeren
Family Tree and Olaf's bar
Message 107 -
2003-12-17 at 20:34:59
DON ROSA to me, 16-12-2003:
>> The first project (without sidebar) is the original version, created
>> by you alone.
>> The second (with sidebar) is a version created by you and the editor.
> No. The entire Tree was created by me and an editor because I drew the
> Tree small and the portraits large. The editors (or somebody) inserted
> the portraits into the tree and did all the other work. The sidebar
> was created the same way the main Tree was. And it was created at the
> same time by the editor, even though I did the additional portraits a
> bit later.
In your previous email, you wrote: "Later (weeks? months? dunno.) the
editor contacted me and said that some Egmont branch publishers had
seen the Tree and wanted Gyro and Daisy and AM&J included."
This made me think that there already was a finished Tree, before the Tree
with the additional portraits was made. But now you say that the Tree and
the sidebar were constructed at the same time. This is what confuses me.
>> BTW. Is the first version (without sidebar) the one published by
>> Gladstone, in WDC 600? Or is it a changed version, or even a third
>> project?
> You're not listening to my explanation.
I am closely listening to your explanation, but that doesn't necessarily
mean that I can understand it all at once.
> [WDC 600] The full Tree with the sidebar was all created at the same
> time by Egmont (editor or functionary or whoever). Gladstone decided
> to leave off the sidebar simply because it would not fit their double
> page spread. Simple.
Indeed. This is "just" an editorial change, then.
>> I think that the sidebar/portraits should be considered like the
>> extra comic book pages.
> Yes. And therefore they are part of the same single project as the
> main Tree. Just an extra which can be used or not used. You seem to
> be contradicting yourself?
My apparent contradiction is caused by thinking of a way how to index
material that has been made in different "takes", and has been released
in different "mixes". "Mixes" which sometimes contain newly recorded
"overdubs".
Inducks doesn't define any "mixes". It just mentions a list of "takes"
and "overdubs", which somehow are related to each other.
If you make new art for a story, you still call it the same "project".
But would that also count for Barks's 1980s penciled half page for
his 1950s 'Back to the Klondike'? I'd say that the 1980s pencils are
made for a *new* project. A project to make a 'Back to the Klondike'
reconstruction.
In other words:
Project 1 - 1950s - 'Back to the Klondike' [original]
Project 2 - 1980s - 'Back to the Klondike' [reconstruction]
I think this is also the case when you make a short version and a long
version of a story, even if it would be at the same time. I mean, the
results are two different "mixes" of the same "song".
In other words:
Project 1 - 1990s - 'The Richest Duck in the World' [short version]
Project 2 - 1990s - 'The Richest Duck in the World' [long version]
I think it's not only comparable with sound recording, but also with
movies. If I see a certain movie title on DVD in a shop, I want to
know if it's the original release or the "director's cut", or both,
before I decide to buy it. It's the same movie, but some people will
prefer the original version, and others the director's cut. But how
can I tell which is which, if only a list of scenes is mentioned on
the box? How do I know which scenes I've seen in the original version,
or in the director's cut? And how do I know if they all have been put
in the same place as in the version I've seen? Inducks doesn't give
me a clue. At least not with Barks, but I believe your creations have
all been indexed according to the same rules. (COA isn't working, so
I can't double-check.)
I'm trying to figure out a way to index such material as clearly as
possible. Suggestions, ideas, and solutions are welcome.
OLAF SOLSTRAND to me, 16-12-2003:
>> Well, you could have ignored that newspaper publication. You were not
>> obliged to look at it, but apparently you were too weak to resist it. :-)
> I know you're right, and that this is no excuse, but I was reading that
> paper anyway, and suddenly I opened the newspaper and there it was.
This is beginning to sound like a confession, my son. :-)
If you're not able to ignore interesting new Duck material, then you must
be addicted to Ducks. Right? (Confess! Confess!) I think the best remedy
would be cold turkey. Clear your house from all your Duck comics. (That's
right - just throw them away! Be strong!) Try to get through all the
nightmares that you will have afterwards. That's just a passing phase,
which will only last a few days. (Give or take a hundred years.)
And just remember that you're not alone, there are many people who will
love to help you getting rid of your Duck comics. And I'm one of them.
Just give me a call. :-)
> When someone shove a chocolate bar into my mouth using force, I swallow
> it - I don't take it out and rewrap it. That's the way I am.
You mean that someone *forced* you to look at that Family Tree preview,
in that Donaldisten article? :-)
--- Dani?l
"Yikes! How can anything that stuffs itself with HAY be so HARD?"
Which Barks story?
Hint #1: cowboys
>> The first project (without sidebar) is the original version, created
>> by you alone.
>> The second (with sidebar) is a version created by you and the editor.
> No. The entire Tree was created by me and an editor because I drew the
> Tree small and the portraits large. The editors (or somebody) inserted
> the portraits into the tree and did all the other work. The sidebar
> was created the same way the main Tree was. And it was created at the
> same time by the editor, even though I did the additional portraits a
> bit later.
In your previous email, you wrote: "Later (weeks? months? dunno.) the
editor contacted me and said that some Egmont branch publishers had
seen the Tree and wanted Gyro and Daisy and AM&J included."
This made me think that there already was a finished Tree, before the Tree
with the additional portraits was made. But now you say that the Tree and
the sidebar were constructed at the same time. This is what confuses me.
>> BTW. Is the first version (without sidebar) the one published by
>> Gladstone, in WDC 600? Or is it a changed version, or even a third
>> project?
> You're not listening to my explanation.
I am closely listening to your explanation, but that doesn't necessarily
mean that I can understand it all at once.
> [WDC 600] The full Tree with the sidebar was all created at the same
> time by Egmont (editor or functionary or whoever). Gladstone decided
> to leave off the sidebar simply because it would not fit their double
> page spread. Simple.
Indeed. This is "just" an editorial change, then.
>> I think that the sidebar/portraits should be considered like the
>> extra comic book pages.
> Yes. And therefore they are part of the same single project as the
> main Tree. Just an extra which can be used or not used. You seem to
> be contradicting yourself?
My apparent contradiction is caused by thinking of a way how to index
material that has been made in different "takes", and has been released
in different "mixes". "Mixes" which sometimes contain newly recorded
"overdubs".
Inducks doesn't define any "mixes". It just mentions a list of "takes"
and "overdubs", which somehow are related to each other.
If you make new art for a story, you still call it the same "project".
But would that also count for Barks's 1980s penciled half page for
his 1950s 'Back to the Klondike'? I'd say that the 1980s pencils are
made for a *new* project. A project to make a 'Back to the Klondike'
reconstruction.
In other words:
Project 1 - 1950s - 'Back to the Klondike' [original]
Project 2 - 1980s - 'Back to the Klondike' [reconstruction]
I think this is also the case when you make a short version and a long
version of a story, even if it would be at the same time. I mean, the
results are two different "mixes" of the same "song".
In other words:
Project 1 - 1990s - 'The Richest Duck in the World' [short version]
Project 2 - 1990s - 'The Richest Duck in the World' [long version]
I think it's not only comparable with sound recording, but also with
movies. If I see a certain movie title on DVD in a shop, I want to
know if it's the original release or the "director's cut", or both,
before I decide to buy it. It's the same movie, but some people will
prefer the original version, and others the director's cut. But how
can I tell which is which, if only a list of scenes is mentioned on
the box? How do I know which scenes I've seen in the original version,
or in the director's cut? And how do I know if they all have been put
in the same place as in the version I've seen? Inducks doesn't give
me a clue. At least not with Barks, but I believe your creations have
all been indexed according to the same rules. (COA isn't working, so
I can't double-check.)
I'm trying to figure out a way to index such material as clearly as
possible. Suggestions, ideas, and solutions are welcome.
OLAF SOLSTRAND to me, 16-12-2003:
>> Well, you could have ignored that newspaper publication. You were not
>> obliged to look at it, but apparently you were too weak to resist it. :-)
> I know you're right, and that this is no excuse, but I was reading that
> paper anyway, and suddenly I opened the newspaper and there it was.
This is beginning to sound like a confession, my son. :-)
If you're not able to ignore interesting new Duck material, then you must
be addicted to Ducks. Right? (Confess! Confess!) I think the best remedy
would be cold turkey. Clear your house from all your Duck comics. (That's
right - just throw them away! Be strong!) Try to get through all the
nightmares that you will have afterwards. That's just a passing phase,
which will only last a few days. (Give or take a hundred years.)
And just remember that you're not alone, there are many people who will
love to help you getting rid of your Duck comics. And I'm one of them.
Just give me a call. :-)
> When someone shove a chocolate bar into my mouth using force, I swallow
> it - I don't take it out and rewrap it. That's the way I am.
You mean that someone *forced* you to look at that Family Tree preview,
in that Donaldisten article? :-)
--- Dani?l
"Yikes! How can anything that stuffs itself with HAY be so HARD?"
Which Barks story?
Hint #1: cowboys
Daniel Van Eijmeren
Question for Gemstone, about Barks's preliminary apple worm cover
Message 108 -
2003-12-18 at 03:09:51
According to 'Uncle Scrooge' 312, an inked cover preliminary of the
apple worm cover (WDC 158) was scheduled for inclusion in 'Walt
Disney's Comics and Stories 628'. Unfortunately, this didn't happen.
And, as far as I know, the art is still unpublished.
Is there any chance that it will appear in one of the next
Gemstones?
BTW. Reportedly, an interesting difference is that the preliminary
version doesn't contain the nephews, nor the Halloween pumpkin.
--- Dani?l
apple worm cover (WDC 158) was scheduled for inclusion in 'Walt
Disney's Comics and Stories 628'. Unfortunately, this didn't happen.
And, as far as I know, the art is still unpublished.
Is there any chance that it will appear in one of the next
Gemstones?
BTW. Reportedly, an interesting difference is that the preliminary
version doesn't contain the nephews, nor the Halloween pumpkin.
--- Dani?l
Olaf Solstrand
Family Tree and Olaf's bar
Message 109 -
2003-12-18 at 05:58:48
Daniel (I'm too lazy to draw the two dots over the e right now):
> You mean that someone *forced* you to look at that Family Tree preview,
> in that [newspaper] article? :-)
Nah, but my eyes were already pinpointed on the newspaper because I was
reading the article. And, as this was a newspaper and not a donaldist
magazine, it's a sensation every time they print a donaldistic article. I
then turned the page, and *bam* I had already seen it. All there was left
to do was (don't take this literally) to "swallow it".
> You mean that someone *forced* you to look at that Family Tree preview,
> in that [newspaper] article? :-)
Nah, but my eyes were already pinpointed on the newspaper because I was
reading the article. And, as this was a newspaper and not a donaldist
magazine, it's a sensation every time they print a donaldistic article. I
then turned the page, and *bam* I had already seen it. All there was left
to do was (don't take this literally) to "swallow it".
Daniel Van Eijmeren
How to index versions and changes
Message 110 -
2003-12-18 at 06:20:45
S?REN OLESEN to me, 16-12-2003:
> Essentially, it's up to the story file maintainers of Inducks
> to decide whether a change needs a different code or just needs
> the original code with a comment about certain changes. If you
> can work out a better system, then I am all ears...
I can't work out a better system all by myself. At least not for
Inducks. I'm just one of the many people there. I've written down
some brainstorming, yesterday. That might be a start, if other
Induckers will pick up the subject. I'm all ears, too.
--- Dani?l
> Essentially, it's up to the story file maintainers of Inducks
> to decide whether a change needs a different code or just needs
> the original code with a comment about certain changes. If you
> can work out a better system, then I am all ears...
I can't work out a better system all by myself. At least not for
Inducks. I'm just one of the many people there. I've written down
some brainstorming, yesterday. That might be a start, if other
Induckers will pick up the subject. I'm all ears, too.
--- Dani?l
Daniel Van Eijmeren
Olaf's newspaper
Message 111 -
2003-12-18 at 06:46:41
OLAF SOLSTRAND to më, 18-12-2003:
>> You mean that someone *forced* you to look at that Family Tree
>> preview, in that [newspaper] article? :-)
> Nah, but my eyes were already pinpointed on the newspaper because
> I was reading the article. And, as this was a newspaper and not a
> donaldist magazine, it's a sensation every time they print a
> donaldistic article. I then turned the page, and *bam* I had
> already seen it. All there was left to do was (don't take this
> literally) to "swallow it".
If you know exactly where on the locus cocus the seat of the memory
is located, you only need to tap yourself there, and lo! You don't
REMEMBER NOTHING since last November! That makes it possible to
repeatedly see the same material for the first time, over and over
again!
You won't remember how to undo the trick, if you do it all by yourself,
but that's another problem. :-)
--- Daniël, professor of encephalography
"I get it!... I'm DECEASED -- and what's running around here thinkin'
it's ME is my GHOST!"
This is me, looking in the mirror at 5:30 A.M.
But very coincidentally, it's also a quote from the same Barks story
I've just been referring to. Which one? :-)
>> You mean that someone *forced* you to look at that Family Tree
>> preview, in that [newspaper] article? :-)
> Nah, but my eyes were already pinpointed on the newspaper because
> I was reading the article. And, as this was a newspaper and not a
> donaldist magazine, it's a sensation every time they print a
> donaldistic article. I then turned the page, and *bam* I had
> already seen it. All there was left to do was (don't take this
> literally) to "swallow it".
If you know exactly where on the locus cocus the seat of the memory
is located, you only need to tap yourself there, and lo! You don't
REMEMBER NOTHING since last November! That makes it possible to
repeatedly see the same material for the first time, over and over
again!
You won't remember how to undo the trick, if you do it all by yourself,
but that's another problem. :-)
--- Daniël, professor of encephalography
"I get it!... I'm DECEASED -- and what's running around here thinkin'
it's ME is my GHOST!"
This is me, looking in the mirror at 5:30 A.M.
But very coincidentally, it's also a quote from the same Barks story
I've just been referring to. Which one? :-)
Halvor.Sandven
Gyro's First Invention
Message 112 -
2003-12-18 at 10:18:53
Hello!
I just re-read Rosa's story 'Gyro First Invention' in WDC 324, after
having read it in the Norwegian weekly earlier. It was great reading it
in its original language, and this is a really good story which
interacts very good with several of Barks classics. I liked the idea of
using Gyro to get Scrooge's money out, as using the toy-train would be a
much too slow method. However, there are some minor things I like to
point out, and I did this after having read it the first time also, but
never got a good explanation for these things, but now as more people
have read the story, I try again:
Using the think-box to make Little Helper intelligent was another nice
idea, and if I'm not mistaken, the think-box also worked on Gyro
himself, making him even more brilliant than he was before his little
accident. His inventions were not very successful up to this point. This
makes me wonder that maybe it's not completely correct to say that
Little Helper was his first success, but rather the think-box, as it was
this invention that made the creation of the helper possible, and also
most likely boosted Gyro's own intellect.
Another thing, when reading Bark's story about the think-box (a story
later in time than this one), I get the impression that Donald doesn't
really know Gyro at this point, only by reputation. Donald thinks Gyro's
a nut, and he doesn't want his nephews to help him. Isn't this a bit
strange, considering that Donald knows at this time that Gyro helped
Scrooge with his big problem, and that he really is brilliant?
The next thing is Gyro's appearance. In the first Gyro-stories by Barks,
his hair is quite different. It's longer, and cut in another way. In
Rosa's story Gyro has the appearance of later stories. Why is this so?
Wouldn't it be more natural that his hair was longer in Rosa's story?
I don't want to give the impression that I didn't like this story,
because I did! I loved it and had great pleasure reading it. These
things I've mentioned here are all minor points.
On a side-note, speaking of Gyro's hear; I just re-read the
Fallberg/Murry-story 'The Moon-Blot Plot' from WDC 246-248, first
published in 1961. This story also contains Gyro, and in the first
chapter we see Gyro as he first appeared, with the long hair, but when
chapter 2 begins he suddenly has got a haircut, looking more like he did
in Barks later stories. When we see him in silhouette, we still can see
his longer hair. Strange indeed!
Halvor
On a side-note, speaking of Gyro's hear; I just re-read the
Fallberg/Murry-story 'The Moon-Blot Plot' from WDC 246-248, first
published in 1961. This story also contains Gyro, and in the first
chapter we see Gyro as he first appeared, with the long hair, but when
chapter 2 begins he suddenly has got a haircut, looking more like he did
in Barks later stories. When we see him in silhouette, we still can see
his longer hair. Strange indeed!
Halvor
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
This email with attachments is solely for the use of the individual or
entity to whom it is addressed. Please also be aware that DnB cannot
accept any payment orders or other legally binding correspondence with
customers as a part of an email.
This email message has been virus checked by the virus programs used
in the DnB Group.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
I just re-read Rosa's story 'Gyro First Invention' in WDC 324, after
having read it in the Norwegian weekly earlier. It was great reading it
in its original language, and this is a really good story which
interacts very good with several of Barks classics. I liked the idea of
using Gyro to get Scrooge's money out, as using the toy-train would be a
much too slow method. However, there are some minor things I like to
point out, and I did this after having read it the first time also, but
never got a good explanation for these things, but now as more people
have read the story, I try again:
Using the think-box to make Little Helper intelligent was another nice
idea, and if I'm not mistaken, the think-box also worked on Gyro
himself, making him even more brilliant than he was before his little
accident. His inventions were not very successful up to this point. This
makes me wonder that maybe it's not completely correct to say that
Little Helper was his first success, but rather the think-box, as it was
this invention that made the creation of the helper possible, and also
most likely boosted Gyro's own intellect.
Another thing, when reading Bark's story about the think-box (a story
later in time than this one), I get the impression that Donald doesn't
really know Gyro at this point, only by reputation. Donald thinks Gyro's
a nut, and he doesn't want his nephews to help him. Isn't this a bit
strange, considering that Donald knows at this time that Gyro helped
Scrooge with his big problem, and that he really is brilliant?
The next thing is Gyro's appearance. In the first Gyro-stories by Barks,
his hair is quite different. It's longer, and cut in another way. In
Rosa's story Gyro has the appearance of later stories. Why is this so?
Wouldn't it be more natural that his hair was longer in Rosa's story?
I don't want to give the impression that I didn't like this story,
because I did! I loved it and had great pleasure reading it. These
things I've mentioned here are all minor points.
On a side-note, speaking of Gyro's hear; I just re-read the
Fallberg/Murry-story 'The Moon-Blot Plot' from WDC 246-248, first
published in 1961. This story also contains Gyro, and in the first
chapter we see Gyro as he first appeared, with the long hair, but when
chapter 2 begins he suddenly has got a haircut, looking more like he did
in Barks later stories. When we see him in silhouette, we still can see
his longer hair. Strange indeed!
Halvor
On a side-note, speaking of Gyro's hear; I just re-read the
Fallberg/Murry-story 'The Moon-Blot Plot' from WDC 246-248, first
published in 1961. This story also contains Gyro, and in the first
chapter we see Gyro as he first appeared, with the long hair, but when
chapter 2 begins he suddenly has got a haircut, looking more like he did
in Barks later stories. When we see him in silhouette, we still can see
his longer hair. Strange indeed!
Halvor
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
This email with attachments is solely for the use of the individual or
entity to whom it is addressed. Please also be aware that DnB cannot
accept any payment orders or other legally binding correspondence with
customers as a part of an email.
This email message has been virus checked by the virus programs used
in the DnB Group.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Timo Ronkainen
Barks quote
Message 113 -
2003-12-18 at 10:28:34
>"I get it!... I'm DECEASED -- and what's running around here thinkin'
>it's ME is my GHOST!"
>Which one? :-)
This time this must be easy, since even I remember this :-)
US House of Haunts (US63)
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!"
_________________________________________________________________
Flirttaile, rupattele, juorua tai vaihda kuulumisia n?yt?ss? tapahtuvissa
keskusteluissa. Lataa ilmainen MSN Messenger. http://messenger.msn.fi
>it's ME is my GHOST!"
>Which one? :-)
This time this must be easy, since even I remember this :-)
US House of Haunts (US63)
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!"
_________________________________________________________________
Flirttaile, rupattele, juorua tai vaihda kuulumisia n?yt?ss? tapahtuvissa
keskusteluissa. Lataa ilmainen MSN Messenger. http://messenger.msn.fi
Olaf Solstrand
Gyro's First Invention
Message 114 -
2003-12-18 at 12:25:46
Halvor:
> I liked the idea of using Gyro to get Scrooge's money out, as using
> the toy-train would be a much too slow method.
I disagree, really... In "Christmas for Shacktown", Scrooge got nothing but
what he deserved, didn't he? If there is a "bad guy" in "Christmas for
Shacktown", it's Scrooge. And the bad guy should be punished, shouldn't he?
As we're getting close to Christmas, the name Scrooge makes me think of the
Dickens character. Was Dickens' Scrooge a bad guy? Oh yes, sure he was. Did
he get a punishment? No. But that is different, as "A Christmas Carol" is
the story about how Ebenezer Scrooge _changes_. He's laughing and having
fun in the end, throwing a great party for everybody. Our Scrooge throws a
great party too - but he doesn't take part in it himself. He never wanted
for the children in Shacktown to get a toy train. Money was everything that
mattered to him, and the only reason he sponsored the christmas party was
that as a reward for the nephews finding a way to get all his money back -
and he never meant to give that much, either. He only cared for his money.
He DESERVED the punishment he got - he didn't "lose" his money, but it will
take him 272 years to get it back. Is Scrooge as a result of that a poor
old man? No, with that toy train he can fetch out more money in an hour
than a normal man earns in a year! Still, to get all his money back he had
to wait 272 years. That was the punishment he got, and in sympathy with the
children of Shacktown I can only say that I think he deserved it.
Besides, as both Carl Barks and Don Rosa (and many, many, many others) have
said or shown: Scrooge has plenty of money in the bank! The banks refuse to
take any more of his money, that is how rich he is! Don Rosa has also
written a few places that the money in the bin is Scrooge's personal
memories and the money he never uses - so why would losing this money
result in his companies shutting down and Scrooge going bankrupt?
> Using the think-box to make Little Helper intelligent was another nice
> idea, and if I'm not mistaken, the think-box also worked on Gyro
> himself, making him even more brilliant than he was before his little
> accident.
Hm... that's almost a paradox. Personally, I think that a person smart
enough to make a machine that makes himself smarter (accident or not) is
smart enough as it is. :-)
> This
> makes me wonder that maybe it's not completely correct to say that
> Little Helper was his first success, but rather the think-box, as it was
> this invention that made the creation of the helper possible, and also
> most likely boosted Gyro's own intellect.
But the think box wasn't finished until later...
> Halvor
>
>
>
> This email with attachments is solely for the use of the individual or
> entity to whom it is addressed. Please also be aware that DnB cannot
> accept any payment orders or other legally binding correspondence with
> customers as a part of an email.
Good to know!
Olaf the Blue
> I liked the idea of using Gyro to get Scrooge's money out, as using
> the toy-train would be a much too slow method.
I disagree, really... In "Christmas for Shacktown", Scrooge got nothing but
what he deserved, didn't he? If there is a "bad guy" in "Christmas for
Shacktown", it's Scrooge. And the bad guy should be punished, shouldn't he?
As we're getting close to Christmas, the name Scrooge makes me think of the
Dickens character. Was Dickens' Scrooge a bad guy? Oh yes, sure he was. Did
he get a punishment? No. But that is different, as "A Christmas Carol" is
the story about how Ebenezer Scrooge _changes_. He's laughing and having
fun in the end, throwing a great party for everybody. Our Scrooge throws a
great party too - but he doesn't take part in it himself. He never wanted
for the children in Shacktown to get a toy train. Money was everything that
mattered to him, and the only reason he sponsored the christmas party was
that as a reward for the nephews finding a way to get all his money back -
and he never meant to give that much, either. He only cared for his money.
He DESERVED the punishment he got - he didn't "lose" his money, but it will
take him 272 years to get it back. Is Scrooge as a result of that a poor
old man? No, with that toy train he can fetch out more money in an hour
than a normal man earns in a year! Still, to get all his money back he had
to wait 272 years. That was the punishment he got, and in sympathy with the
children of Shacktown I can only say that I think he deserved it.
Besides, as both Carl Barks and Don Rosa (and many, many, many others) have
said or shown: Scrooge has plenty of money in the bank! The banks refuse to
take any more of his money, that is how rich he is! Don Rosa has also
written a few places that the money in the bin is Scrooge's personal
memories and the money he never uses - so why would losing this money
result in his companies shutting down and Scrooge going bankrupt?
> Using the think-box to make Little Helper intelligent was another nice
> idea, and if I'm not mistaken, the think-box also worked on Gyro
> himself, making him even more brilliant than he was before his little
> accident.
Hm... that's almost a paradox. Personally, I think that a person smart
enough to make a machine that makes himself smarter (accident or not) is
smart enough as it is. :-)
> This
> makes me wonder that maybe it's not completely correct to say that
> Little Helper was his first success, but rather the think-box, as it was
> this invention that made the creation of the helper possible, and also
> most likely boosted Gyro's own intellect.
But the think box wasn't finished until later...
> Halvor
>
>
>
> This email with attachments is solely for the use of the individual or
> entity to whom it is addressed. Please also be aware that DnB cannot
> accept any payment orders or other legally binding correspondence with
> customers as a part of an email.
Good to know!
Olaf the Blue
Halvor.Sandven
Gyro's First Invention
Message 115 -
2003-12-18 at 12:59:35
Olaf:
>> I liked the idea of using Gyro to get Scrooge's money out, as using
>> the toy-train would be a much too slow method.
> I disagree, really... In "Christmas for Shacktown", Scrooge got
nothing but
> what he deserved, didn't he? If there is a "bad guy" in "Christmas for
> Shacktown", it's Scrooge. And the bad guy should be punished,
shouldn't he?
I didn't say that Scrooge didn't deserve to be punished. He really did,
but later stories show that all his cash is intact, so it would be
logical that he got his money back some other way than using the
toy-train. Rosa's explanation of how this was done, works fine with me.
>> Using the think-box to make Little Helper intelligent was another
nice
>> idea, and if I'm not mistaken, the think-box also worked on Gyro
>> himself, making him even more brilliant than he was before his little
>> accident.
> Hm... that's almost a paradox. Personally, I think that a person smart
> enough to make a machine that makes himself smarter (accident or not)
is
> smart enough as it is. :-)
Yes, Gyro would be very smart anyway, but I regard him as a real genius,
and it may have been an accident, but I like the idea that his invention
made him even smarter. As shown in the flashback in Rosa's story, his
early attempts making inventions weren't too clever.
>> This
>> makes me wonder that maybe it's not completely correct to say that
>> Little Helper was his first success, but rather the think-box, as it
was
>> this invention that made the creation of the helper possible, and
also
>> most likely boosted Gyro's own intellect.
> But the think box wasn't finished until later...
Yes, it wasn't finished until later. Don't know what more he had to do
with it before he regarded it as finished, but this early version of the
invention sure did work at this stage also.
Halvor
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
This email with attachments is solely for the use of the individual or
entity to whom it is addressed. Please also be aware that DnB cannot
accept any payment orders or other legally binding correspondence with
customers as a part of an email.
This email message has been virus checked by the virus programs used
in the DnB Group.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
>> I liked the idea of using Gyro to get Scrooge's money out, as using
>> the toy-train would be a much too slow method.
> I disagree, really... In "Christmas for Shacktown", Scrooge got
nothing but
> what he deserved, didn't he? If there is a "bad guy" in "Christmas for
> Shacktown", it's Scrooge. And the bad guy should be punished,
shouldn't he?
I didn't say that Scrooge didn't deserve to be punished. He really did,
but later stories show that all his cash is intact, so it would be
logical that he got his money back some other way than using the
toy-train. Rosa's explanation of how this was done, works fine with me.
>> Using the think-box to make Little Helper intelligent was another
nice
>> idea, and if I'm not mistaken, the think-box also worked on Gyro
>> himself, making him even more brilliant than he was before his little
>> accident.
> Hm... that's almost a paradox. Personally, I think that a person smart
> enough to make a machine that makes himself smarter (accident or not)
is
> smart enough as it is. :-)
Yes, Gyro would be very smart anyway, but I regard him as a real genius,
and it may have been an accident, but I like the idea that his invention
made him even smarter. As shown in the flashback in Rosa's story, his
early attempts making inventions weren't too clever.
>> This
>> makes me wonder that maybe it's not completely correct to say that
>> Little Helper was his first success, but rather the think-box, as it
was
>> this invention that made the creation of the helper possible, and
also
>> most likely boosted Gyro's own intellect.
> But the think box wasn't finished until later...
Yes, it wasn't finished until later. Don't know what more he had to do
with it before he regarded it as finished, but this early version of the
invention sure did work at this stage also.
Halvor
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
This email with attachments is solely for the use of the individual or
entity to whom it is addressed. Please also be aware that DnB cannot
accept any payment orders or other legally binding correspondence with
customers as a part of an email.
This email message has been virus checked by the virus programs used
in the DnB Group.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Gary Leach
No nephews
Message 116 -
2003-12-18 at 16:13:07
Daniel,
> According to 'Uncle Scrooge' 312, an inked cover preliminary of the
> apple worm cover (WDC 158) was scheduled for inclusion in 'Walt
> Disney's Comics and Stories 628'. Unfortunately, this didn't happen.
> And, as far as I know, the art is still unpublished.
>
> Is there any chance that it will appear in one of the next
> Gemstones?
No, this won't be appearing for the foreseeable future. This was
business left unfinished by the previous Disney publisher, and it
remains for him to follow it up, if he wishes to do so. He may,
eventually, but there's really no telling when...or if.
Gary
> According to 'Uncle Scrooge' 312, an inked cover preliminary of the
> apple worm cover (WDC 158) was scheduled for inclusion in 'Walt
> Disney's Comics and Stories 628'. Unfortunately, this didn't happen.
> And, as far as I know, the art is still unpublished.
>
> Is there any chance that it will appear in one of the next
> Gemstones?
No, this won't be appearing for the foreseeable future. This was
business left unfinished by the previous Disney publisher, and it
remains for him to follow it up, if he wishes to do so. He may,
eventually, but there's really no telling when...or if.
Gary
H.W.Fluks
Question about Don Rosa's family tree
Message 117 -
2003-12-18 at 18:29:47
Dani?l:
> >> [Don Rosa's family tree, D 11221]
> >> See: http://coa.inducks.org/coa/c1/story.php/0/D+11221
>
> Can you also add the missing issue codes to the COA interface? At the
> moment, there are no issues codes shown at all. They can only be
> deciphered by looking at the URL.
Issue codes are mainly of interest for indexers (we invent them ourselves).
I think there's no need to bother the COA user with codes like that.
> > For practical reasons, we decided in
> > Inducks to call the version with sidebar "original", and the other
> > one "changed".
>
> If Rosa made two versions by himself, then this solution is highly
> debatable. At least for me.
The reason for that may be that you missed the debate that we Inducksers had about this subject. It was some time ago, on our "ddb" mailing list for Inducksers.
> > In WDC 600, the version without sidebar was used (as you
> > can see on COA).
>
> No, I can't. I can only see that it has "changes". By just looking at COA,
> I cannot know if those changes are the very same as in other publications.
> In other words: I got you here! (Didn't I?) :-)
No, you didn't.
It says "Changes: sidebar with DA,AMJ,GY,HLP is missing". And for every other reprint with the same "Changes" comment, those changes are the very same. Simple, isn't it?
> "takes"
> "mixes"
> "overdubs"
You completely lost me, here. I don't know what these technical terms mean.
But I also think I don't need to know.
> I can't work out a better system all by myself. At least not for
> Inducks.
Neither could I, in the past 10 years. And currently I don't want to, either.
Inducks has some minor flaws for people who want *very* exact information about Barks or Rosa creations. I can live with that.
Don:
> (Yes, I'd like to think, for fun, that Daisy
> is the [sister] of HD&L's long lost father... but [..]
> forget that whole idea for now.)
That's not fair... how can we forget such a remarkable remark?
> So I drew 5 more portraits and sent them off.
> Somebody at Egmont created that nice "hovering leaf cluster" out of pieces
> of the tree edges I had drawn on the real Tree.
This information was new to me. (But it doesn't change anything, Inducks-wise.)
> It seems to me
> that these Duck Friends sidebars are just like the extra pages I create for
> a story that are supposed to be used when the story is printed in two parts.
> Those pages are done as part of the main story and I often do them after I
> complete the main story and send them in later, and those pages are used at
> the discretion of editors. So, the two versions of my Family Tree should be
> treated the same way as you treat the two versions that exist of all of my
> long stories.
We decided to treat them differently (in Inducks). In the case of the 3-part stories, both versions contain artwork that is not in the other version. In the case of the family tree, one version simply contains less artwork than the other.
Dani?l:
> Isn't there any website which collects the information that you give
> about your work? I knew you have explained the creation of the family
> tree before, but I didn't know where to find it.
It's still on our DCML webpages:
http://stp.ling.uu.se/~starback/dcml/creators/rosa-on-himself.html#familytree
I started this project years ago, but stopped updating this page. Don gave us *so* much information that I failed to keep up!
--Harry.
> >> [Don Rosa's family tree, D 11221]
> >> See: http://coa.inducks.org/coa/c1/story.php/0/D+11221
>
> Can you also add the missing issue codes to the COA interface? At the
> moment, there are no issues codes shown at all. They can only be
> deciphered by looking at the URL.
Issue codes are mainly of interest for indexers (we invent them ourselves).
I think there's no need to bother the COA user with codes like that.
> > For practical reasons, we decided in
> > Inducks to call the version with sidebar "original", and the other
> > one "changed".
>
> If Rosa made two versions by himself, then this solution is highly
> debatable. At least for me.
The reason for that may be that you missed the debate that we Inducksers had about this subject. It was some time ago, on our "ddb" mailing list for Inducksers.
> > In WDC 600, the version without sidebar was used (as you
> > can see on COA).
>
> No, I can't. I can only see that it has "changes". By just looking at COA,
> I cannot know if those changes are the very same as in other publications.
> In other words: I got you here! (Didn't I?) :-)
No, you didn't.
It says "Changes: sidebar with DA,AMJ,GY,HLP is missing". And for every other reprint with the same "Changes" comment, those changes are the very same. Simple, isn't it?
> "takes"
> "mixes"
> "overdubs"
You completely lost me, here. I don't know what these technical terms mean.
But I also think I don't need to know.
> I can't work out a better system all by myself. At least not for
> Inducks.
Neither could I, in the past 10 years. And currently I don't want to, either.
Inducks has some minor flaws for people who want *very* exact information about Barks or Rosa creations. I can live with that.
Don:
> (Yes, I'd like to think, for fun, that Daisy
> is the [sister] of HD&L's long lost father... but [..]
> forget that whole idea for now.)
That's not fair... how can we forget such a remarkable remark?
> So I drew 5 more portraits and sent them off.
> Somebody at Egmont created that nice "hovering leaf cluster" out of pieces
> of the tree edges I had drawn on the real Tree.
This information was new to me. (But it doesn't change anything, Inducks-wise.)
> It seems to me
> that these Duck Friends sidebars are just like the extra pages I create for
> a story that are supposed to be used when the story is printed in two parts.
> Those pages are done as part of the main story and I often do them after I
> complete the main story and send them in later, and those pages are used at
> the discretion of editors. So, the two versions of my Family Tree should be
> treated the same way as you treat the two versions that exist of all of my
> long stories.
We decided to treat them differently (in Inducks). In the case of the 3-part stories, both versions contain artwork that is not in the other version. In the case of the family tree, one version simply contains less artwork than the other.
Dani?l:
> Isn't there any website which collects the information that you give
> about your work? I knew you have explained the creation of the family
> tree before, but I didn't know where to find it.
It's still on our DCML webpages:
http://stp.ling.uu.se/~starback/dcml/creators/rosa-on-himself.html#familytree
I started this project years ago, but stopped updating this page. Don gave us *so* much information that I failed to keep up!
--Harry.
Daniel Van Eijmeren
Question about Don Rosa's family tree
Message 118 -
2003-12-18 at 21:06:54
HARRY FLUKS to me, 18-12-2003:
>> Can you also add the missing issue codes to the COA interface? At
>> the moment, there are no issues codes shown at all. They can only
>> be deciphered by looking at the URL.
> Issue codes are mainly of interest for indexers (we invent them
> ourselves). I think there's no need to bother the COA user with
> codes like that.
I *am* a COA user, and I *want* to be bothered with it.
>>> For practical reasons, we decided in Inducks to call the version
>>> with sidebar "original", and the other one "changed".
>> If Rosa made two versions by himself, then this solution is highly
>> debatable. At least for me.
> The reason for that may be that you missed the debate that we
> Inducksers had about this subject.
I don't think that's the reason. Debates are not as important as their
results. And there are also many other COA-users who don't know about
any debate at all.
>> I can only see that it has "changes". By just looking at COA,
>> I cannot know if those changes are the very same as in other publications.
>> In other words: I got you here! (Didn't I?) :-)
> No, you didn't. It says "Changes: sidebar with DA,AMJ,GY,HLP is missing".
> And for every other reprint with the same "Changes" comment, those
> changes are the very same. Simple, isn't it?
No. The comment doesn't say that the changes are the very same.
The characters could have been removed in different ways.
>> "takes"
>> "mixes"
>> "overdubs"
> You completely lost me, here. I don't know what these technical
> terms mean. But I also think I don't need to know.
I'm going to throw a tantrum. This sounds so ignorant!
"I don't understand your hours of typing and thinking,
but what do I care?"
>> I can't work out a better system all by myself. At least not for
>> Inducks.
> Neither could I, in the past 10 years. And currently I don't want
> to, either.
What a way of discussing... :-(
> Inducks has some minor flaws for people who want *very* exact
> information about Barks or Rosa creations. I can live with that.
I don't call them "minor flaws". I know quite a lot about Barks. But
when looking at COA, I sometimes don't get a clue what exactly is
meant. So, I'm curious if "Barks dummies" would know what's going on.
And since Rosa is making multiple versions of stories, these instances
are not just a few exceptions anymore. What art does an editor need if
he wants to publish Rosa's long version of a story, without having to
solve a jigsaw puzzle? The same for Barks stories like 'Back to the
Klondike' (OS 456) and 'How Green Was My Lettuce' (US 51).
And what about the new art that Jippes and Rosa made for those two
stories? It's very nice that they've created that new work, but it
muddies the water even further. And COA doesn't provide any clue.
So, these stories keep on being used in different ways, because people
have to draw their own conclusions.
--- Dani?l
>> Can you also add the missing issue codes to the COA interface? At
>> the moment, there are no issues codes shown at all. They can only
>> be deciphered by looking at the URL.
> Issue codes are mainly of interest for indexers (we invent them
> ourselves). I think there's no need to bother the COA user with
> codes like that.
I *am* a COA user, and I *want* to be bothered with it.
>>> For practical reasons, we decided in Inducks to call the version
>>> with sidebar "original", and the other one "changed".
>> If Rosa made two versions by himself, then this solution is highly
>> debatable. At least for me.
> The reason for that may be that you missed the debate that we
> Inducksers had about this subject.
I don't think that's the reason. Debates are not as important as their
results. And there are also many other COA-users who don't know about
any debate at all.
>> I can only see that it has "changes". By just looking at COA,
>> I cannot know if those changes are the very same as in other publications.
>> In other words: I got you here! (Didn't I?) :-)
> No, you didn't. It says "Changes: sidebar with DA,AMJ,GY,HLP is missing".
> And for every other reprint with the same "Changes" comment, those
> changes are the very same. Simple, isn't it?
No. The comment doesn't say that the changes are the very same.
The characters could have been removed in different ways.
>> "takes"
>> "mixes"
>> "overdubs"
> You completely lost me, here. I don't know what these technical
> terms mean. But I also think I don't need to know.
I'm going to throw a tantrum. This sounds so ignorant!
"I don't understand your hours of typing and thinking,
but what do I care?"
>> I can't work out a better system all by myself. At least not for
>> Inducks.
> Neither could I, in the past 10 years. And currently I don't want
> to, either.
What a way of discussing... :-(
> Inducks has some minor flaws for people who want *very* exact
> information about Barks or Rosa creations. I can live with that.
I don't call them "minor flaws". I know quite a lot about Barks. But
when looking at COA, I sometimes don't get a clue what exactly is
meant. So, I'm curious if "Barks dummies" would know what's going on.
And since Rosa is making multiple versions of stories, these instances
are not just a few exceptions anymore. What art does an editor need if
he wants to publish Rosa's long version of a story, without having to
solve a jigsaw puzzle? The same for Barks stories like 'Back to the
Klondike' (OS 456) and 'How Green Was My Lettuce' (US 51).
And what about the new art that Jippes and Rosa made for those two
stories? It's very nice that they've created that new work, but it
muddies the water even further. And COA doesn't provide any clue.
So, these stories keep on being used in different ways, because people
have to draw their own conclusions.
--- Dani?l
Stefan Persson
Question about Don Rosa's family tree
Message 119 -
2003-12-18 at 21:13:05
Dani?l van Eijmeren wrote:
>>No, you didn't. It says "Changes: sidebar with DA,AMJ,GY,HLP is missing".
>>And for every other reprint with the same "Changes" comment, those
>>changes are the very same. Simple, isn't it?
>
> No. The comment doesn't say that the changes are the very same.
> The characters could have been removed in different ways.
Different ways? Someone using a knife, someone else giving part of the
tree to his dog, and a third one using a computer program to remove the
sidebar with DA, AMJ, GY & HLP as mentioned in the changes field?
Stefan
>>No, you didn't. It says "Changes: sidebar with DA,AMJ,GY,HLP is missing".
>>And for every other reprint with the same "Changes" comment, those
>>changes are the very same. Simple, isn't it?
>
> No. The comment doesn't say that the changes are the very same.
> The characters could have been removed in different ways.
Different ways? Someone using a knife, someone else giving part of the
tree to his dog, and a third one using a computer program to remove the
sidebar with DA, AMJ, GY & HLP as mentioned in the changes field?
Stefan
H.W.Fluks
Question about Don Rosa's family tree
Message 120 -
2003-12-18 at 21:30:41
Dani?l:
>>> Can you also add the missing issue codes to the COA interface?
>> I think there's no need to bother the COA user with
>> codes like that.
> I *am* a COA user, and I *want* to be bothered with it.
I think that's because you are not only a COA user, but also an indexer. Or is there another reason that a COA user would want to know the internal codes that were meant for indexers only?
> Debates are not as important as their results.
But I already told you the result:
H> For practical reasons, we decided in Inducks to call the version
H> with sidebar "original", and the other one "changed".
If you want to know the exact "practical reasons" and our discussions, I can dig out the archives for you.
>>> "takes" "mixes" "overdubs"
>> I don't know what these technical
>> terms mean. But I also think I don't need to know.
> "I don't understand your hours of typing and thinking,
> but what do I care?"
That's not what I intend to say.
You're using a metaphor to explain something. I don't understand the metaphor at all (and I'm not interested in the things described by that metaphor). Then there's no use in explaining the metaphor to me; better concentrate on the original subject.
> > Inducks has some minor flaws for people who want *very* exact
> > information about Barks or Rosa creations.
>
> I don't call them "minor flaws". I know quite a lot about Barks.
That's quite an understatement. 8-)
> But when looking at COA, I sometimes don't get a clue what exactly is
> meant. So, I'm curious if "Barks dummies" would know what's going on.
You're right.
> And since Rosa is making multiple versions of stories, these instances
> are not just a few exceptions anymore.
Well actually, they still are. Rosa is making a dozen stories a year (if we're lucky). In the total producktion of several hundreds of stories per year, these Rosa stories are still exceptions.
> What art does an editor need [...]
Note that Inducks was not primarily meant for editors. The fact that they can use it is a very good thing, but editors should not *rely* on Inducks data, but always double-check.
> And what about the new art that Jippes and Rosa made for those two
> stories? It's very nice that they've created that new work, but it
> muddies the water even further. And COA doesn't provide any clue.
Yes, we should add more "clues" in Inducks in some specific cases.
(Like you and I have already been doing during our phone calls.)
--Harry.
>>> Can you also add the missing issue codes to the COA interface?
>> I think there's no need to bother the COA user with
>> codes like that.
> I *am* a COA user, and I *want* to be bothered with it.
I think that's because you are not only a COA user, but also an indexer. Or is there another reason that a COA user would want to know the internal codes that were meant for indexers only?
> Debates are not as important as their results.
But I already told you the result:
H> For practical reasons, we decided in Inducks to call the version
H> with sidebar "original", and the other one "changed".
If you want to know the exact "practical reasons" and our discussions, I can dig out the archives for you.
>>> "takes" "mixes" "overdubs"
>> I don't know what these technical
>> terms mean. But I also think I don't need to know.
> "I don't understand your hours of typing and thinking,
> but what do I care?"
That's not what I intend to say.
You're using a metaphor to explain something. I don't understand the metaphor at all (and I'm not interested in the things described by that metaphor). Then there's no use in explaining the metaphor to me; better concentrate on the original subject.
> > Inducks has some minor flaws for people who want *very* exact
> > information about Barks or Rosa creations.
>
> I don't call them "minor flaws". I know quite a lot about Barks.
That's quite an understatement. 8-)
> But when looking at COA, I sometimes don't get a clue what exactly is
> meant. So, I'm curious if "Barks dummies" would know what's going on.
You're right.
> And since Rosa is making multiple versions of stories, these instances
> are not just a few exceptions anymore.
Well actually, they still are. Rosa is making a dozen stories a year (if we're lucky). In the total producktion of several hundreds of stories per year, these Rosa stories are still exceptions.
> What art does an editor need [...]
Note that Inducks was not primarily meant for editors. The fact that they can use it is a very good thing, but editors should not *rely* on Inducks data, but always double-check.
> And what about the new art that Jippes and Rosa made for those two
> stories? It's very nice that they've created that new work, but it
> muddies the water even further. And COA doesn't provide any clue.
Yes, we should add more "clues" in Inducks in some specific cases.
(Like you and I have already been doing during our phone calls.)
--Harry.