Keskustelujen arkisto

I don't post often on this list, but I follow it closely, and I'm always
uncomfortable when I see Don Rosa being jumped on for his use of ideas
from Barks' works. This list provides a great first-hand opportunity for
us to chat with our favorite comics authors and find out what they've got
in store for us next; I only wish more Disney comics greats posted here
as regularly as Don. I've never seen Don "throw a tantrum" yet, and it's
not accurate to accuse him of doing so. I couldn't care less about
Universes and Continuity and the like--all I want are good, funny,
exciting stories with my favorite Ducks doing their stuff, and Don by and
large gives me just that.

________________________________________________________________
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!

I'm surprised this hasn't come up yet. The Post had a
couple of pics of it - looked pleasant enough, if
somewhat manga-influenced. Since I have a young
daughter, I'm fairly happy w/ newish tough female
characters like Kim Possible. mike

For Young Readers, Will Disney's Hex Mark the Spot?
By Linton Weeks
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, March 30, 2004; Page C01

When it comes to exporting popular American kidculture
to other
parts of the planet, the Walt Disney Co. is the
out-and-out, hands-
down, no-doubt-about-it world champ.

Now Disney is turning the tables and importing a fad.

You heard right. Batten down the hatches and lock up
your young
ones. It's a book! It's a TV show! And it just might
be a
multimedia, money-minting onslaught coming straight
from Italy.

It's "W.I.T.C.H."

Which, according to Disney's marketing machine, is a
group of five
girls, in their early teens, "with special powers to
keep the world
safe from evil." But there is nothing to keep America
safe
from "W.I.T.C.H."

The company will introduce the first couple of volumes
in a series
of paperback books, selling for $4.99 apiece, next
month. A TV show
based on the characters is slated for Disney cable
next year.

Deborah Dugan, president of Disney Publishing
Worldwide, says, "We
are building a major franchise."

Disney, which bills itself as the world's largest
publisher of
children's books and magazines, is hoping to slip the
world another
Mickey. "W.I.T.C.H." comic magazines are already
published monthly
in 64 countries and in 27 languages. More than 1
million copies are
sold each month. In France and Germany, kids buy more
than 100,000
copies each month. In Italy, more than 200,000 copies
are sold
monthly.

Though the stories are mostly published as comic books
in other
countries, the Disney brain trust believes that
American girls will
prefer chapter-book storytelling, at least in the
beginning.

The letters of the title stand for the first names of
the main
characters -- Will, Irma, Taranee, Cornelia and Hay
Lin. Each
heroine has control over a natural force or element:
energy, water,
fire, earth and air.

In the first American paperback, "The Power of Five,"
the girls meet
at their school, Sheffield Institute, and discover
they have super
powers. They also have wings. Together, they battle
monsters.

Translated from Italian, the book is written in a
breezy style. For
example: The principal, Mrs. Knickerbocker, "stalked
around the
school with her ample chest thrust out before her and
her even more
ample backside swishing from side to side with
terrifying force. It
reminded Taranee of the swirling brushes of a street
sweeper, dead
set on ridding the hallways of filth (otherwise known
as loitering
students)."

Disney sees grand possibilities for "W.I.T.C.H.,"
including action
toys, clothing and maybe even a movie. There is a TV
series in
development in France. "The TV show will be edgier,"
Dugan says. "It
will draw more boys. It will have lots of action and
be more cutting
edge."

Disney has also created Web sites for fans in Finland,
the
Netherlands and other spots around the globe. "Girls
in Poland are
talking to girls in Brazil," Dugan says.

In the face of its split with Pixar Studios
(responsible for silver
screen hits such as "Toy Story" and "Finding Nemo"),
rating woes at
its ABC network and an internal power clash between
Chief Executive
Michael Eisner and former director Roy Disney that
coincided with a
multiyear stock slide, Disney is hungry for some
hopeful signs.

The first "W.I.T.C.H." story was published in 2001 in
Italy -- where
Disney has a lucrative tradition -- by the same team
of Milanese
cartoonists that produces a weekly magazine featuring
Topolino, the
Italian version of Mickey Mouse. Topolino was
introduced in 1932.
Average weekly sales of Topolino in Italy these days:
320,000
copies. In Germany, sales of Mickey Mouse magazine are
even bigger.

Several years ago, the Italian group was assigned "to
come up with a
concept that would appeal primarily to girls," says
Ellen
Morgenstern, communications director for Disney
Publishing
Worldwide. "W.I.T.C.H." has worked in every place it's
been
launched, she says, even in China and other "countries
that are very
stringent about the content they allow you to bring
in."

The writing is not edited for each country,
Morgenstern says, but
sometimes illustrations are redrawn to be more
geo-appropriate. "In
Saudi Arabia we had to make the socks on the girls go
up a little
higher."

Will "W.I.T.C.H." cast a spell on American girls?
Sheilah Egan, a
bookseller at A Likely Story in Alexandria, says that
her store will
definitely be stocking "W.I.T.C.H." "They're going to
be cute," she
says. But, she adds: "It's very odd. They are
manufacturing a set of
characters not based on a previous book, a fairy tale
or something."

She points out that "people are hungry for the
fanciful."

Other contemporary series, such as "The Babysitters
Club" and "Sweet
Valley High," also appeal to girls.

Sometimes, Egan says, series appear and then just fade
away. "Other
times," she says, "they hit at just the right time."

Deborah Johnson, book buyer for Child's Play on
Connecticut Avenue
NW, says she has seen the books in Disney's spring
catalogue, but
she is not planning to buy any. "I believe in books
that come from
authors' minds and not from committees," she says.

"There are so many good books in the world that speak
to people more
directly and come from writers' hearts as well."

She adds, "Why give children books that encourage them
to watch
television?"

Staff writer Frank Ahrens contributed to this report.

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Small Business $15K Web Design Giveaway
http://promotions.yahoo.com/design_giveaway/

Mike Rhode, reporting from the Post:

>Several years ago, the Italian group was assigned "to
>come up with a concept that would appeal primarily to
>girls," says Ellen Morgenstern, communications director
>for Disney Publishing Worldwide.

I'm not sure this is entirely correct...

However, I think this interviewd lady hits the spot when
she says:

>She adds, "Why give children books that encourage them
>to watch television?"

While not a fan of W.I.T.C.H. myself, probably for both
age and gender reasons, I've read some early issues in
original Italian and I must say they're very good in their
genre, *especially* for the beautiful art, a nice balance
of manga and "classic" influences.

These are indeed good *comics*, and Disney U.S.A. are making
a big mistake in turning them into a mere merchandising ploy.

Cheers!

Eta Beta

Matthew Williams wrote:

>The point I want to make here is that even if Rosa wants to confine his
>ideas and character developments to his own universe, his fans are largely
>not willing to do the same. Heck, his ideas about Ludwig Von Drake haven't
>even been put into a comic, but many, many fans accept the idea as duck fact
>(pardon the silly word choice). I'm amazed by the number of websites I've
>seen that describe Ludwig as Scrooge's brother-in-law.
>
>
I think that Don's ideas about Ludvig have been seen almost nowhere.
They are not featured even in the family-tree Don made. Actually I
think that the idea of Ludvig being Scrooge's brother-in-law goes much
farther. Donald has called Ludvig "uncle" for decades at least in
Finnish Aku Ankka (probably in most Egmont countries). Since Ludvig
doesn't seem to be Scrooge's brother, its a good assumption to make him
to be related in some other way. I remember Don making a joke about
Daisy being actually a man (H,D&L's long lost father in fact)... I guess
someone could also take this to be canon, since Don said it... :-)

>What I originally loved about Rosa's work was that he brought stricter
>continuity to the ducks. Almost twenty years later, I'm not 100% happy that
>parts of the duck world have permanently changed. I'm not seething with
>rage. The ducks affect my daily, "real," life little, but I've been a fan
>all of my life, and I dislike some of the ways the characters and storylines
>have been closed or changed forever. I wonder now if a certain lack of
>continuity or at least the loose continuity that Barks worked under might be
>preferable to all of this nailing down of dates and "facts" that this group
>and Rosa's stories often engage in.
>

I understand your point and even agree with them to some extent. Still,
if some of Don's stories are considered as canon by some fans it just
tells that there are people who want to embrace some extra continuity.
So they are spreading their views around. It's not like Don is telling
them that this is the only right canon and the work of other creators
should be ignored. Since duck-comics are made by hundreds of people
around the globe, it is unavoidable that there are different
interpretations. This seems to be a concept that many fans seem to
ignore and tell other people that duck-universe has been somehow
wronged. I wonder why some people just can?t embrace the fact that there
are as many duck-universes that there are creators? I grew up with these
stories as probably most you did too, its never been a problem to me to
realize that there are different duck realities. Italian stories for
example make a very different interpretations of the characters, but at
least I can read them in their own context without worrying if they
agree or disagree with stories by Barks, Rosa or Van Horn.

I guess any writer could make a different interpretation of characters
or storylines and not in any way be hindered by the fact that Don or
some one else has done something with them in the past. At least this
should be so. Has Egmont officially closed down some storylines because
of Don? Sounds crazy. I for one would love to see other people using
Glittering Goldie or Arpin Lusene in their stories. Different
interpretations (I should check the dictionary for a synonym, since I
seem to love this word today) are the salt of the comic industry.

I doubt anyone likes *every* story by their favorite artist/writer. One
have to learn to just ignore those stories as parts of his/her own
personal view of duck-universe/-canon.

Sorry, if I babbled inconsistently. Your message was well put and it
just inspired me to think things a bit further than I did in my reply to
Daniel. Maybe one day I can sum it up in coherent, short way.

DON ROSA to me, 01-04-2004:

>> I don't understand why you need Barks's ingredients and legency, to
>> build your "own" li'l Universe. That's an impossible thing to do. It
>> will never be your Universe, because many of your stories are based
>> on the work of *someone else*.

> A *perfect* example of what I mean, eh?

A perfect example of what?

> Even when I tried to diffuse what someone else wrote, tried to make
> sure nobody interpreted his wording to imply that he or I claim that
> my view of this Duck Universe is anything other than only MY personal
> view, even when I do that, someone complains that I didn't even word
> that *precisely* to his particular liking. So......

Well, that's exactly what a discussion forum is about. Someone says
something. Some people agree, and other people don't fully agree or
simply disagree.

But there's no "radical minority" here that lures in the dark, waiting
until someone finally makes a mistake, or something like that. ALL of us
are radical, for joining this discussion forum in the first place. Comics
are made to be read. They're not made to be discussed by a bunch of fans,
so-called experts, or creators, who decide to spend the best part of their
leisure time behind a computer monitor. If people decide to join each
other in such a way, like we all are doing here, lurking or contributing,
then they're *all* clear examples of radical persons. They're certainly
not a minority. And as long as people keep open and patient towards each
other, it can be very interesting and a *lot* of fun.

I just disagreed with your statement about having your own little universe.
That's all. Reason is that you can't make such a claim when writing Disney
stories. (Or Warner Bros stories, etc.) If artists want to have their own
universe, they have to fully invent one themselves. From scratch. But if
an artist writes a Disney story, then it's destinied to be part of the
Disney universe.

Barks Ducks or Rosa Ducks, they're both *Disney* Ducks. And the main reason
why people decide to buy Disney comics, is that they want to read about
their *Disney* heroes. I'm willing to bet that 99,99 percent of the readers,
past or present, didn't know (or care) about any persons named Barks, or
Rosa, when they bought/read their first Disney comic. And it's only a very
limited few of those people, who get radical by getting interested in the
historical or fictional backgrounds of these stories, and the people who
created them.

And as long as artists are creating Disney stories, expanding the Disney
universe, they can't just build up their own territory inside of it,
purposedly contradicting elements in stories of Barks and other Disney
colleagues, meanwhile expecting that disagreeing people will just humbly
look the other way.

That's building walls instead of bridges, in a universe that is shared by
all Disney artists. So, you can't just ask people to ignore you. If people
would want to ignore you, they would have to skip a lot of issues with Rosa
in them. And what if these issues with Rosa, also contain interesting
material by other Disney artists? What then?

As long as you are writing Disney stories, *any* Disney reader or artist
is free to criticize what you're doing in these stories. And doing so,
these people are fully minding their own business, because you are part of
that business. That includes the "personal view" you are putting into your
Disney work.

And if you decide to create stories which explain away the work of Barks
or any other Disney artist, you make yourself controversial.

And if people get crazy or neurotic (or whatever), when they see what your
doing with their cherished Ducks, you can't just simply explain that away
by calling such people a "radical minority". That would make you even more
controversial.

>> I think that such criticism is something to expect. And why not?

> As I have frequently told people, I *do* expect it. As a passionate
> Barks fan, if I were looking at the undeserved popularity of my work,
> I think I'd resent me, too.

Do you really say that you make stories that you would have resented if
they would not have been made by yourself? Is that really what you mean?

You're using the wording "resent me". So, just to be clear, I want to
underscore that I'm *not* resenting you, I'm just criticizing your *work*,
and the way you treat Barks's work. The reason is that I am a passionate
Barks fan, too. And I'd rather see you make original stories, instead of
stories that are based on "Barks facts" or Barks elements/storylines. I'd
rather see 100% Rosa, instead of some kind of some forced Barks/Rosa mix-up.

The Rosa stories I like are the ones with little or no references to Barks.
"His Majesty McDuck", for example. Or "A Matter of Gravity", or the recently
re-reprinted Nostrildamus-story. I find a lot of your ten-pagers very good,
because they are so original and well-composed.

But for some reason, most Rosa stories that followed began to lean on Barks
more and more, structurally trying to explain or continuate Barks's story
elements. I still found the 12-chaper "Life of $crooge" very good, but only
as a one-time experiment. When I realized that this was in fact the main
direction of most Rosa stories that followed, I couldn't enjoy these newer
stories anymore. And since then I'm less fond of "Lo$" than I was. It didn't
have that funny one-time purpose which I thought it had.

I still like a lot of your jokes and twists, but for me the quality of the
overall stories themselves has been going downhill for a long time. And I
have no enjoyment or satisfaction at all in saying that, because I find it
one of greatest losses in Disney comics history.

I'm wondering if I'm really the only one here, on this mailing list, who
thinks that you are at your best when you make original stories of your
own, with *new* elements, without leaning on recycled Barks elements.

>> You're known to throw a tantrum when a translator misinterprets some
>> parts of your dialogue, or when a colourist doesn't follow your
>> instructions when colouring this-or-that historical boat, uniform or
>> building.

> "Throw a tantrum"? You are so charitable with your interpretations of
> "objecting". And I will *always* object to errors made on one of my
> stories -- no one else can, no one else knows when the error was made.

That's a great thing to do. (Did I protest? Why would I?)

> I'm supposed to say "thank you for that error"?

No, of course not. I just wanted to say that you can be quite radical,
too. And again, why not? But I'd rather use that other word you used:
"passionate". If only because it sounds so much nicer.

--- Dani?l

"Stop! You don't know what you're doing to yourself"
(Which Barks story?) :-)
Hint #1: These words are spoken by Donald.
Hint #2: Donald is talking to an animal.
Hint #3: Loss of hair.
Hint #4: Junior Woodchucks
Hint #5: Hello! Is everyone baby-sitting or something?

Please! What more hints can I give??? AAARGH!!!
I feel some radicalism coming up! :-)

Dani?l wrote:

>"Stop! You don't know what you're doing to yourself"
>(Which Barks story?) :-)
>Hint #1: These words are spoken by Donald.
>Hint #2: Donald is talking to an animal.
>Hint #3: Loss of hair.
>Hint #4: Junior Woodchucks
>Hint #5: Hello! Is everyone baby-sitting or something?

>Please! What more hints can I give??? AAARGH!!!
>I feel some radicalism coming up! :-)

It's from "The Dogsitter"! This one has been about to drive me crazy!

Matt

Hi
Think it need to be said that the news about chapter 11b on the german
fansite was an april fools gag - I don't know if it was one Don made on
the fans there or what it was, but it sure had me fooled for one second -
that date yesterday didn't give me many gags though...

Hilsen/Yours
Anders Christian Siveb?k
Donaldist

DON ROSA to me, 03-04-2003:

> Daniel van Eijmeren says I have neither the right nor ability to
> "create my own universe".

That's a wrong and *very* negative summary of what I said.
And you know it.

--- Dani?l