http://www.andebyonline.com/paperolimpiadi/the_missing_page_95.jpg
This page appear also into the brazilian version of Paperolimpiadi!
Fernando!
Author
Topic: 200404
(317 messages)
Fernando Ventura
The missing page also in Brazil!
Message 271 -
2004-04-18 at 18:58:55
Olaf Solstrand
The missing page also in Brazil!
Message 272 -
2004-04-18 at 19:02:04
> This page appear also into the brazilian version of Paperolimpiadi!
Hm... Seems as if almost everybody have printed this page. My question then
is: Does anyone know if ANY other countries than Italy left this page out?
Hm... Seems as if almost everybody have printed this page. My question then
is: Does anyone know if ANY other countries than Italy left this page out?
Matthew Williams
Blum, Woodchucks, and Reprints
Message 273 -
2004-04-19 at 01:01:14
I've been extraordinarily busy lately, and I haven't had time to respond to
some really interesting posts, so I hope you'll all forgive me if I put in
my two cents on a couple of the things discussed here recently.
ABOUT GEOFFREY BLUM: I'm not a huge Blum fan, but I don't understand why
some of you dislike his stories so much. I can genuinely say that I liked
Donald's characterization in "Dime and Dime Again." I like the randomly
thrown in Barks references too; I think the references are fun in the same
way that our quote quizzes are fun here. I also like the decidedly modern
setting; I'm fascinated by how Scrooge and the others' lives would change as
ours have through the years. There is something perhaps a tad pompous about
Blum, but I find his work worth looking at overall. I'm anxious to hear
more about why he's so distasteful to many of you.
ABOUT JIPPES AND BARKS SCRIPTS: I think I might have said some of this
before, so forgive me if I'm repeating myself. I like seeing the
Jippes/Barks Woodchuck stories, but I do think the work is beneath Jippes.
He's too good a writer to just be drawing the master's lesser efforts.
Besides when Tony Strobl was the original artist, I have no real complaints
about the original presentation of the scripts. I was lucky enough to buy
an original copy of "Officer for a Day" at the mall yesterday, and I was
struck by how good the Strobl art really was.
ABOUT GEMSTONE REPRINTS: I, for one, didn't really mind seeing "Back to the
Klondike" again a few months ago. Honestly, I would prefer to see the more
rarely reprinted Barks stuff, but I'm really hoping that at least a few
readers got to read "Back to the Klondike" for the first time. In my
opinion (and I doubt many of you will challenge me here), it's one of Barks'
best, and it has the power to hook readers for the long haul. The problem
with Gemstone JUST reprinting Barks' less reprinted stuff is that the less
reprinted stuff is, on the whole, Barks' lesser efforts. I just wonder if
new American duck fans are still being born. I hope they are, but I don't
have a lot of hope.
Anyway, that's about all I have to say for now!
Matt
some really interesting posts, so I hope you'll all forgive me if I put in
my two cents on a couple of the things discussed here recently.
ABOUT GEOFFREY BLUM: I'm not a huge Blum fan, but I don't understand why
some of you dislike his stories so much. I can genuinely say that I liked
Donald's characterization in "Dime and Dime Again." I like the randomly
thrown in Barks references too; I think the references are fun in the same
way that our quote quizzes are fun here. I also like the decidedly modern
setting; I'm fascinated by how Scrooge and the others' lives would change as
ours have through the years. There is something perhaps a tad pompous about
Blum, but I find his work worth looking at overall. I'm anxious to hear
more about why he's so distasteful to many of you.
ABOUT JIPPES AND BARKS SCRIPTS: I think I might have said some of this
before, so forgive me if I'm repeating myself. I like seeing the
Jippes/Barks Woodchuck stories, but I do think the work is beneath Jippes.
He's too good a writer to just be drawing the master's lesser efforts.
Besides when Tony Strobl was the original artist, I have no real complaints
about the original presentation of the scripts. I was lucky enough to buy
an original copy of "Officer for a Day" at the mall yesterday, and I was
struck by how good the Strobl art really was.
ABOUT GEMSTONE REPRINTS: I, for one, didn't really mind seeing "Back to the
Klondike" again a few months ago. Honestly, I would prefer to see the more
rarely reprinted Barks stuff, but I'm really hoping that at least a few
readers got to read "Back to the Klondike" for the first time. In my
opinion (and I doubt many of you will challenge me here), it's one of Barks'
best, and it has the power to hook readers for the long haul. The problem
with Gemstone JUST reprinting Barks' less reprinted stuff is that the less
reprinted stuff is, on the whole, Barks' lesser efforts. I just wonder if
new American duck fans are still being born. I hope they are, but I don't
have a lot of hope.
Anyway, that's about all I have to say for now!
Matt
Matthew Williams
HELP!!!
Message 274 -
2004-04-19 at 15:05:35
Fellow Disney Comics Comrades,
Over the last year, I have written eleven Disney comic scripts of varying
lengths and featuring various members of the Duck family. I'm anxious to
submit the best of my labors for publication, but I know little how to go
about it. If any of you could provide me with mailing addresses and/or the
names of editors, I would be quite appreciative. It would help me to know
too who publishes a good amount of new material and who accepts English
scripts. I feel happy with the scripts I've produced, but I'm anxious to
have someone outside of my family circle to read them! I've tried to make
my efforts a little different from anything I've ever read in a Disney
comic, but I can't decide if that's a kiss of death or a positive thing. At
any rate, any info any of you could supply me with would be very much
appreciated.
Thanks,
Matt
Over the last year, I have written eleven Disney comic scripts of varying
lengths and featuring various members of the Duck family. I'm anxious to
submit the best of my labors for publication, but I know little how to go
about it. If any of you could provide me with mailing addresses and/or the
names of editors, I would be quite appreciative. It would help me to know
too who publishes a good amount of new material and who accepts English
scripts. I feel happy with the scripts I've produced, but I'm anxious to
have someone outside of my family circle to read them! I've tried to make
my efforts a little different from anything I've ever read in a Disney
comic, but I can't decide if that's a kiss of death or a positive thing. At
any rate, any info any of you could supply me with would be very much
appreciated.
Thanks,
Matt
Anders Christian Sivebæk
Editors
Message 275 -
2004-04-20 at 13:31:04
Matt, you should try Egmont Creation -
Anne maria Vind or Stefan or Unn Printz-P?hlson.
I read on a barks-page that Byron is not there anymore, and David moved
some time ago.
Someone here on the list is bound to have the adress.
Or maybe Disney Italia, the former VNU (Holland) or Hachette (France). I
don't have anything on them though...
>
Hilsen/Yours
Anders Christian Siveb?k
Donaldist
Anne maria Vind or Stefan or Unn Printz-P?hlson.
I read on a barks-page that Byron is not there anymore, and David moved
some time ago.
Someone here on the list is bound to have the adress.
Or maybe Disney Italia, the former VNU (Holland) or Hachette (France). I
don't have anything on them though...
>
Hilsen/Yours
Anders Christian Siveb?k
Donaldist
Olaf Solstrand
Editors
Message 276 -
2004-04-20 at 13:51:43
P? Tue, 20 Apr 2004 12:31:04 +0200, skrev Anders Christian Siveb?k
<anders_sivebaek at nns.dk>:
> Matt, you should try Egmont Creation - Anne maria Vind or Stefan or Unn
> Printz-P?hlson.
>
> I read on a barks-page that Byron is not there anymore, and David moved
> some time ago. Someone here on the list is bound to have the adress.
That is wrong. Byron is still there.
--
Olaf Solstrand
<anders_sivebaek at nns.dk>:
> Matt, you should try Egmont Creation - Anne maria Vind or Stefan or Unn
> Printz-P?hlson.
>
> I read on a barks-page that Byron is not there anymore, and David moved
> some time ago. Someone here on the list is bound to have the adress.
That is wrong. Byron is still there.
--
Olaf Solstrand
Anders Christian Sivebæk
Editors
Message 277 -
2004-04-20 at 14:25:32
OLAF
>
>That is wrong. Byron is still there.
I thought so too - but thought Peter knew his facts.
Glad we sorted that out.
>
Sorry, Byron.
Hilsen/Yours
Anders Christian Siveb?k
Donaldist
>
>That is wrong. Byron is still there.
I thought so too - but thought Peter knew his facts.
Glad we sorted that out.
>
Sorry, Byron.
Hilsen/Yours
Anders Christian Siveb?k
Donaldist
Lars Jensen
Donald's uncle Ludwig
Message 278 -
2004-04-20 at 18:04:41
Sorry it has taken so long for me to respond, Mickey, but life got in
the way. You wrote:
> I don't agree with you, in general, because you say (or I understood
> so) that some ideas by Don about familiar connections cannot be
> extended to the other Duck universes. "Regard Don's ideas as exclusive
> to his stories alone". I wanna regard Don's ideas as valid to other
> stories. It's not a crime...
OK, now I understand. I think you have partially misunderstood my
posting. The sentence you quote ("Regard Don's ideas as exclusive to his
stories alone") was part of this paragraph:
> Anyway, if you dislike the idea of retcons, or Don's ideas in general,
> then simply disregard his stories. Egmont produces thousands of pages
> each year that never once mention Hortense, Ludwig, José, Panchito or
> the nephews' possible relationship to the founder of the Woodchucks.
> Regard Don's ideas as exclusive to his stories alone.
In other words, I was simply telling people that if they don't like Don
Rosa's ideas, they can just pretend these ideas don't exist anywhere
else than in his stories. I believe this is what Don himself has said
time and again.
As for your line "You say (or I understood so) that some ideas by Don
about familiar connections cannot be extended to the other Duck
universes"...
Well, sometimes they can't. Daniel J. Neyer pointed out that in the
cartoon "Kids is Kids", Ludwig Von Drake is a bachelor. Don Rosa has
stated Ludwig is married. How do those two "facts" fit with each other?
They don't. So should we ignore the official word from Disney? Bad idea.
Instead of dismissing Don's suggestion, why not simply choose to believe
(as I do) that in some stories (including "Kids is Kids"), Ludwig is a
bachelor, and in some stories (including Don's material), Ludwig is
married?! Problem solved, and, hopefully, everybody is happy.
If you don't like this compromise, and if you want Don's idea to be the
"truth", then we would have to ignore a cartoon from Disney themselves.
How can we possibly do that? They *created* the character!
Don Rosa has several interesting ideas, but some of them only work in
his own carefully-thought-out universe. Don has shown that Scrooge has
no brothers, making him the last male McDuck. That works very well in
adding an epic dimension to Don's Scrooge. Outside Don's stories,
though, Romano Scarpa has created a brother of Scrooge's named
Gedeone. Should this character be killed off, just because he doesn't
fit into Don's view of Scrooge?
Don dislikes Fethry Duck and has stated this character doesn't exist in
his universe. At least in Scandinavia, Fethry is immensely popular with
readers. Should every story ever made with Fethry be banned from being
reprinted?
The Italian version of the Money Bin is drawn with a dome on top of its
roof. Don uses the Barks model in his stories. Should Italian artists --
after 50 or so years -- be forced to drop the dome and draw the Bin in
Barks' style?
These are just a few (rhetorical) examples. As you can probably tell: If
Disney creators were forced to adhere to Don Rosa's ideas, a lot of
changes would have to be made in non-Rosa stories. Changes that, I
suspect, especially Italians would find annoying. Why irritate millions
of readers? And why limit the number of useable Duck characters and
elements? Why not simply let the creators do as they wish (within
reason)?
Lars
the way. You wrote:
> I don't agree with you, in general, because you say (or I understood
> so) that some ideas by Don about familiar connections cannot be
> extended to the other Duck universes. "Regard Don's ideas as exclusive
> to his stories alone". I wanna regard Don's ideas as valid to other
> stories. It's not a crime...
OK, now I understand. I think you have partially misunderstood my
posting. The sentence you quote ("Regard Don's ideas as exclusive to his
stories alone") was part of this paragraph:
> Anyway, if you dislike the idea of retcons, or Don's ideas in general,
> then simply disregard his stories. Egmont produces thousands of pages
> each year that never once mention Hortense, Ludwig, José, Panchito or
> the nephews' possible relationship to the founder of the Woodchucks.
> Regard Don's ideas as exclusive to his stories alone.
In other words, I was simply telling people that if they don't like Don
Rosa's ideas, they can just pretend these ideas don't exist anywhere
else than in his stories. I believe this is what Don himself has said
time and again.
As for your line "You say (or I understood so) that some ideas by Don
about familiar connections cannot be extended to the other Duck
universes"...
Well, sometimes they can't. Daniel J. Neyer pointed out that in the
cartoon "Kids is Kids", Ludwig Von Drake is a bachelor. Don Rosa has
stated Ludwig is married. How do those two "facts" fit with each other?
They don't. So should we ignore the official word from Disney? Bad idea.
Instead of dismissing Don's suggestion, why not simply choose to believe
(as I do) that in some stories (including "Kids is Kids"), Ludwig is a
bachelor, and in some stories (including Don's material), Ludwig is
married?! Problem solved, and, hopefully, everybody is happy.
If you don't like this compromise, and if you want Don's idea to be the
"truth", then we would have to ignore a cartoon from Disney themselves.
How can we possibly do that? They *created* the character!
Don Rosa has several interesting ideas, but some of them only work in
his own carefully-thought-out universe. Don has shown that Scrooge has
no brothers, making him the last male McDuck. That works very well in
adding an epic dimension to Don's Scrooge. Outside Don's stories,
though, Romano Scarpa has created a brother of Scrooge's named
Gedeone. Should this character be killed off, just because he doesn't
fit into Don's view of Scrooge?
Don dislikes Fethry Duck and has stated this character doesn't exist in
his universe. At least in Scandinavia, Fethry is immensely popular with
readers. Should every story ever made with Fethry be banned from being
reprinted?
The Italian version of the Money Bin is drawn with a dome on top of its
roof. Don uses the Barks model in his stories. Should Italian artists --
after 50 or so years -- be forced to drop the dome and draw the Bin in
Barks' style?
These are just a few (rhetorical) examples. As you can probably tell: If
Disney creators were forced to adhere to Don Rosa's ideas, a lot of
changes would have to be made in non-Rosa stories. Changes that, I
suspect, especially Italians would find annoying. Why irritate millions
of readers? And why limit the number of useable Duck characters and
elements? Why not simply let the creators do as they wish (within
reason)?
Lars
Lars Jensen
Postman and DUCKTALES
Message 279 -
2004-04-20 at 18:06:07
Daniel J. Neyer wrote:
> Someone had said that Rosa had no right to regard Ducktales as an
> "unauthorized" take on Barks' universe, since his stories are also
> "unauthorized."
I don't remember Don calling DT "unauthorized", so I won't comment on
that. As regards whether Don Rosa's stories are unauthorized... He, I
and every other creator you see in the comic books have made these
stories for a Disney licensee. It doesn't get much more authorized than
that.
> Sorry for the confusion.
No need to apologize. I was just puzzled.
Lars
> Someone had said that Rosa had no right to regard Ducktales as an
> "unauthorized" take on Barks' universe, since his stories are also
> "unauthorized."
I don't remember Don calling DT "unauthorized", so I won't comment on
that. As regards whether Don Rosa's stories are unauthorized... He, I
and every other creator you see in the comic books have made these
stories for a Disney licensee. It doesn't get much more authorized than
that.
> Sorry for the confusion.
No need to apologize. I was just puzzled.
Lars
Lars Jensen
New Disney series in States
Message 280 -
2004-04-20 at 18:06:47
Mike Rhode forwarded:
> Though the [W.I.T.C.H.] 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.
> [...] Translated from Italian, the book is written in a breezy style.
OK, I'm confused. Are they talking about the Italian comics or the
Danish novels? As far as I know, there are no Italian novels out.
> Disney sees grand possibilities for "W.I.T.C.H." [...] maybe even a
> movie. There is a TV series in development in France.
Finally, a confirmation of the TV series. (I assume this is the
Saban-animated show.)
> Sheilah Egan, a bookseller at A Likely Story in Alexandria, says [...]
> "It's very odd. They are manufacturing a set of characters not based
> on a previous book, a fairy tale or something."
Yes, that's called "originality". Odd, indeed.
> 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.
As far as I know, the "committee" that came up with this concept
consisted of two people: A writer and an artist. I suppose she thinks
Asterix or anything from Alan Moore is worthless, too.
W.I.T.C.H. comics are good comics. I haven't read the Danish novels, but
they're by Lene Kaaberbøl, who has written fantasy for quite a while
now, so there's a chance the novels are good, too. If Disney does its
job right, W.I.T.C.H. will rake in lots and lots of money in the US. And
"Child's Play" will miss out. Good going, Deborah.
Lars
> Though the [W.I.T.C.H.] 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.
> [...] Translated from Italian, the book is written in a breezy style.
OK, I'm confused. Are they talking about the Italian comics or the
Danish novels? As far as I know, there are no Italian novels out.
> Disney sees grand possibilities for "W.I.T.C.H." [...] maybe even a
> movie. There is a TV series in development in France.
Finally, a confirmation of the TV series. (I assume this is the
Saban-animated show.)
> Sheilah Egan, a bookseller at A Likely Story in Alexandria, says [...]
> "It's very odd. They are manufacturing a set of characters not based
> on a previous book, a fairy tale or something."
Yes, that's called "originality". Odd, indeed.
> 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.
As far as I know, the "committee" that came up with this concept
consisted of two people: A writer and an artist. I suppose she thinks
Asterix or anything from Alan Moore is worthless, too.
W.I.T.C.H. comics are good comics. I haven't read the Danish novels, but
they're by Lene Kaaberbøl, who has written fantasy for quite a while
now, so there's a chance the novels are good, too. If Disney does its
job right, W.I.T.C.H. will rake in lots and lots of money in the US. And
"Child's Play" will miss out. Good going, Deborah.
Lars
Mickey
Donald's uncle Ludwig
Message 281 -
2004-04-20 at 18:28:47
Lars:
> Well, sometimes [Rosa's ideas] can't. [fit in the other Disney universes].
Sure, sometimes they can, sometimes they can't.
I'm Italian, I'm grown up with lots of stories very very different from
Don's ones; you've just written a list of some differences between them....
It's obvious that no one *have to* apply Don's vision! It would be totally
odd.
Every reader can regard to the stories as he wants, without compelling other
readers or the authors.
I regard most of the Disney stories as "apocryphal". Lots of them are good,
or masterpieces... and my opinion
about them doesn't take the quality off of them, even in my mind.
Mickey
P.S. Again, sorry for my English...
> Well, sometimes [Rosa's ideas] can't. [fit in the other Disney universes].
Sure, sometimes they can, sometimes they can't.
I'm Italian, I'm grown up with lots of stories very very different from
Don's ones; you've just written a list of some differences between them....
It's obvious that no one *have to* apply Don's vision! It would be totally
odd.
Every reader can regard to the stories as he wants, without compelling other
readers or the authors.
I regard most of the Disney stories as "apocryphal". Lots of them are good,
or masterpieces... and my opinion
about them doesn't take the quality off of them, even in my mind.
Mickey
P.S. Again, sorry for my English...
Shad Z.
Can Disney Build a Better Mickey Mouse?
Message 282 -
2004-04-21 at 07:53:30
Another article about Disney's attempts to revitalize
interest in Mickey:
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/18/movies/18GREE.html?ex=1082865600&en=d589c823606ddeed&ei=5006&partner=ALTAVISTA1
You may need to register to read it...
--
Shad Z. ^Q^
http://shadz.homestead.com/files/
HONK TO SEE PUPPIES
Sign along US 287, Loveland CO
--
___________________________________________________________
Sign-up for Ads Free at Mail.com
http://promo.mail.com/adsfreejump.htm
interest in Mickey:
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/18/movies/18GREE.html?ex=1082865600&en=d589c823606ddeed&ei=5006&partner=ALTAVISTA1
You may need to register to read it...
--
Shad Z. ^Q^
http://shadz.homestead.com/files/
HONK TO SEE PUPPIES
Sign along US 287, Loveland CO
--
___________________________________________________________
Sign-up for Ads Free at Mail.com
http://promo.mail.com/adsfreejump.htm
Don Rosa
DCML Digest Issue 40
Message 283 -
2004-04-21 at 16:14:14
> From: "Lars Jensen" <lpj at forfatter.dk>
> Subject: Donald's uncle Ludwig
> Daniel J. Neyer pointed out that in the
> cartoon "Kids is Kids", Ludwig Von Drake is a bachelor. Don Rosa has
> stated Ludwig is married. How do those two "facts" fit with each other?
As with Mr. Matthews, I want to make sure you are not imagining I've
"stated" more than I actually have due to the surfeit of discussion about
*anything* I do or say.
I have never actually used Ludwig in a story. I've done no more than shown
him leaning out a window in a crowd scene in 1988, and the back of his head
in another crowd scene in 1997. So I've certainly never stated anything in
print about his marriage status (though it would seem pretty obvious to me
that, for this German/Austrian character to be related to Donald, it would
of necessity need to be through marriage).
My non-use of a character I *like* is because I was told by Egmont that he
was "officially dead", i.e.: to be never again used, in this Egmont comic
Universe. I don't know if that has changed despite the fact that I think he
has turned up in a few spots in the comics lately. Remember, you have one
division of Egmont creating the stories and all the various local publishing
branches deciding what and how to publish that material. The division of
Egmont I work for might still want to consider LVD "dead", while a local
publisher likes him and digs up some material to print on their own. I
dunno...
> Don dislikes Fethry Duck and has stated this character doesn't exist in
> his universe.
Well, that's true enough, despite my acquiescing to place him into my Family
Tree (and omitting LVD) as long as I could do the rest of it as I saw fit.
But it's not just *my* decision -- when I created that Tree in the early
90's, they wanted Fethry there. A few years later, Egmont told me that
Fethry was "officially dead" along with LVD (which made no difference to me
since I considered him "unborn"). What Egmont's attitude currently is, I
dunno...
> > Someone had said that Rosa had no right to regard Ducktales as an
> > "unauthorized" take on Barks' universe, since his stories are also
> > "unauthorized."
>
> I don't remember Don calling DT "unauthorized", so I won't comment on
> that.
Then I will. No, I never said "DuckTales" was "unauthorized". What I said
was I wanted to bring "DuckTales" into my storylines by having it (*in the
story*) as an unauthorized but very popular Duckburg TV version of $crooge's
life, and have $crooge wanting to sue the creators, etc.
The word I used in my own description of "DuckTales" was "counterfeit". But
I still thought it was a good show as TV cartoons go, which is why I would
have been happy to bring it into my stories in some fashion.
> Subject: Donald's uncle Ludwig
> Daniel J. Neyer pointed out that in the
> cartoon "Kids is Kids", Ludwig Von Drake is a bachelor. Don Rosa has
> stated Ludwig is married. How do those two "facts" fit with each other?
As with Mr. Matthews, I want to make sure you are not imagining I've
"stated" more than I actually have due to the surfeit of discussion about
*anything* I do or say.
I have never actually used Ludwig in a story. I've done no more than shown
him leaning out a window in a crowd scene in 1988, and the back of his head
in another crowd scene in 1997. So I've certainly never stated anything in
print about his marriage status (though it would seem pretty obvious to me
that, for this German/Austrian character to be related to Donald, it would
of necessity need to be through marriage).
My non-use of a character I *like* is because I was told by Egmont that he
was "officially dead", i.e.: to be never again used, in this Egmont comic
Universe. I don't know if that has changed despite the fact that I think he
has turned up in a few spots in the comics lately. Remember, you have one
division of Egmont creating the stories and all the various local publishing
branches deciding what and how to publish that material. The division of
Egmont I work for might still want to consider LVD "dead", while a local
publisher likes him and digs up some material to print on their own. I
dunno...
> Don dislikes Fethry Duck and has stated this character doesn't exist in
> his universe.
Well, that's true enough, despite my acquiescing to place him into my Family
Tree (and omitting LVD) as long as I could do the rest of it as I saw fit.
But it's not just *my* decision -- when I created that Tree in the early
90's, they wanted Fethry there. A few years later, Egmont told me that
Fethry was "officially dead" along with LVD (which made no difference to me
since I considered him "unborn"). What Egmont's attitude currently is, I
dunno...
> > Someone had said that Rosa had no right to regard Ducktales as an
> > "unauthorized" take on Barks' universe, since his stories are also
> > "unauthorized."
>
> I don't remember Don calling DT "unauthorized", so I won't comment on
> that.
Then I will. No, I never said "DuckTales" was "unauthorized". What I said
was I wanted to bring "DuckTales" into my storylines by having it (*in the
story*) as an unauthorized but very popular Duckburg TV version of $crooge's
life, and have $crooge wanting to sue the creators, etc.
The word I used in my own description of "DuckTales" was "counterfeit". But
I still thought it was a good show as TV cartoons go, which is why I would
have been happy to bring it into my stories in some fashion.
Mickey
"Dead" characters
Message 284 -
2004-04-21 at 16:21:05
Don Rosa:
> Egmont told me that Fethry was "officially dead" along with LVD
I can't realize the causes of such decisions O_O
Could anyone"enlight" me?
Mickey
> Egmont told me that Fethry was "officially dead" along with LVD
I can't realize the causes of such decisions O_O
Could anyone"enlight" me?
Mickey
Timo Ronkainen
"Dead" characters
Message 285 -
2004-04-21 at 18:15:42
>Don Rosa:
> > Egmont told me that Fethry was "officially dead" along with LVD
Mickey:
>I can't realize the causes of such decisions O_O
But there've been many pretty new stories about Fethry in Egmont's weekly.
Not too long ago.
Timo
^^''*''^^
Cartoonist - writer - donaldist -
Timo Ronkainen ---------------- -
YO-kyl? 52 A 26 --------------- -
20540 Turku ------------------- -
Finland ----------------------- -
timoro at hotmail.com
timoro2 at yahoo.com
?? 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
> > Egmont told me that Fethry was "officially dead" along with LVD
Mickey:
>I can't realize the causes of such decisions O_O
But there've been many pretty new stories about Fethry in Egmont's weekly.
Not too long ago.
Timo
^^''*''^^
Cartoonist - writer - donaldist -
Timo Ronkainen ---------------- -
YO-kyl? 52 A 26 --------------- -
20540 Turku ------------------- -
Finland ----------------------- -
timoro at hotmail.com
timoro2 at yahoo.com
?? 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