Keskustelujen arkisto

Well, from this American's perspective "Duck Huntress" calls to mind the
image of a duck hunter -- if her costume were camouflaged, Gemstone could
probably get around the "Huntress/Duck Huntress" issue entirely and make her
an even *greater* source of fear amongst the baddies in Duckburg. ;)

<http://www.hunterdan.com/store/dh-006.html>

// Travis Seitler

On 1/10/07, Michael Schartau <m_schartau at hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> Ther are not many words that have female "endings"in English. The ones
> that comes to my mind is lion/lioness, priest/priestess and of course
> socerer/soceress
>
> Accordingly Duck Avengeress or Duck Avengess would be fine. Technicaly the
> languages get new words all the time.
>
> /Michael
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> >Stefan Persson <spe at inducks.org> sent:
> > >But, since Paperinik is "Duck Avenger", wouldn't "Duck Avengeress" be a
> better
> > >English name for Paperinika?
> >
> >Not really from an "American" English perspective.
> >I'm not even sure "Avengeress" is technically a word in any form of the
> english
> >language.
> >
> >Thanks,
> >
> >Rich
>
>

S?ren Krarup Olesen wrote:

> Clever or not. This particular word *was* used in earler issues of
> Websters. However, I wasn't able to find it in my version of the
> "Webster's Encycl. Unabridged Dict." (1996). Check google.com, and
> you'll se what I mean.
>
> As to whether or not some term or word sounds good in *American* English
> is hardly any measure for it's correctness :-)

earler -> earlier
it's -> its

(Sigh!)

S?ren

That is something that i have been writing, rating some stories in the Top 100, i think there is an increasing confusion nowadays between both the Stan Lee/ Marvel and Disney universe, something that is overtly visible in the stories of Paperinik (super-duck); Paperinik began as a good detective story in the seventies before turning into a Batman-esque gothic universe nowadays; i don't think this is possible to mix or blend accurately this two universes, because they are really different in the spirit, so i think the authors should concentrate themselves more on the characters development of the ducks (which is tending to diminish currently - and i don't talk here about Mickey Mouse that would be too long) than on the action-packed super-heroes stories.

NIKOS PANAGIOTOPOYLOS npanag_2 at yahoo.com wrote:
> Why Disney comics should create super-heroes? Is this an influence from Stan
Lee? Super heroes is a different type of comics than Disney comics. Super heroes
are superman batman spiderman X-men, etc. Now we see that Daisy wants to copy
Catwoman.

I sincerely doubt that Stan Lee's current fame, or the popularity of the
Super-hero genre as it currently exists in the theaters and such are directly
responsible for the creation of Paperinika. I do bet the influence of super-hero
comics, however, is responsible... I am making a distinction because both Nikos
and Jean-Marc seem to be implying that this is a fairly recent creation on the
part of Disney. Paperinika (Super-Daisy) has existed since AT LEAST 1977 if not
earlier, and Paperinik before that. Super Goof and the Red Wasp also existed
since that timeframe. So, Super-Hero versions of the Ducks, Mickey and Goofy are
NOT a new idea. Paperinika is more influenced by Batgirl and/or the Huntress,
and maybe even Supergirl, than Catwoman, as far as I can tell.

> However we need diversity in comics plots not only super heroes.I prefer the
old police stories with Mickey, Black Pete and O'Hara.

Of course, I've long stated my preference for Mickey/Pete stories over the Ducks,
but the predominant fanbase on this group is for the Ducks (especially the work
by Barks and Rosa). As for diversity, there's been LOTS and LOTS of Duck, Mouse
and Goofy diversity presented in Disney comics, including a large amount of
police-type stories featuring Mickey, Pete and O'Hara! Those are as much a
staple as Scrooge's acheological adventures. Thankfully those aren't ALL we see,
though. I, personally hope we see THE WIZARDS OF MICKEY translated for the
American audience sometime soon. I love the Dungeons & Dragons and magic-type
Mickey adventures we've seen presented over the past few years! My favorite
Mickey stories are his longer adventure-based multi-parters, of which, I have
liked since the Gottfredson futuristic and fantasy type tales! I think that's
why I also became a big fan of Romano Scarpa, since he easily filled
Gottfredson's shoes!

> Now another theme. Who are the parents of Hewey Liouey Dewey? why do they live
with Uncle Donald? What happened and their parents had sent them to stay with
Donald?

In the comics Donald Duck's twin sister, Della, sent her triplet sons to their
uncle's house for a visit with a letter that read,

"Dear Donald:
I am sending your angel nephews Louie, Huey and Dewey, to stay with you
while their father is in the hospital. A giant firecracker exploded under his
chair.* The little darlings are so playful. I hope you enjoy them.
Your cousin,
Della."

A briefer version of the letter was shown in their film debut as,

"Dear Brother-
I am sending your angel nephews to stay with you.
Sister Dumbella"

Of course Della was eventually revealed to actually be Donald's sister and a
shortened version of Dumbella, but we are never told why the Nephews have not
returned home or what eventually became of their parents. One would assume that
perhaps the three ducklings were abandoned to their irascible uncle, whom they
relished to torture. Over time they became less burdensome to Donald, who grew to
love them as their own father. For a spell Donald entered into the Navy and left
the Nephews in the care of his own miserly Uncle $crooge McDuck. Upon his
discharge from military service he reclaimed the trio and is seen still caring
for them well into their teens.

In case you're curious about Morty & Ferdy Fieldmouse, they are the children of
Mickey's older sister Felicity.

Daisy's nieces, April, May & June are the daughters of Daisy's never officially
seen sister. AM&J and HD&L are supposedly cousins, which means Daisy & Donald
are also cousins, as are Daisy & Gladstone. There's never, to my knowledge, been
an implication that Mickey and Minnie are closely related despite having the same
last name.

What I would like to know is, if there has ever been a story featuring a
three-way competition between Scrooge, Rockerduck and Glomgold over "who is the
Richest or Second Richest Duck"? Currently, as far as I know, both Glomgold and
Rockerduck claim the title of Second Richest Duck in the world. Has that dispute
ever been resolved? It might seem a little nitpicking, but unless they are
"tied" I doubt the validity of at least one of their claims. ;-)

Thanks,

Rich
(Email removed)

---- Msg sent via CWNet - http://www.cwnet.com/

Just a last thing; when i'm referring to character development my thoughts are different from those of Fabio Blanco, i'm more oriented toward the vaudevillesque italian stories of the fifties/sixties than on the Carl Barks ones which are more adventure driven (at least for his adventure stories, the ten pages stories being something different); an another thing, which is a little bit off topic - but not entirely, that i remark nowadays, is the increasing loss of character development of Mickey; a lot of new authors are tending to use him re-looked with his outfits of the 30's [something that Romano Scarpa wasn't used to doing, and F. Gottfredson too since the World of tomorrow i think - correct me if i'm wrong - ] and utterly without characterization as if it were 1930 again (period Death Valley).

Francesco Spreafico francesco.spreafico at gmail.com wrote:
> I think she [Paperinika] wasn't influenced by anyone at all, she was created in
1973 to be just a one-shot (well, two-shot) counterpart for Paperinik, in a couple
of spoof stories about feminism... it wasn't really about superheroes.

Sure, the "point" of the story was her feminist views, I'm not denying or arguing
that. But physically, from the standpoint of WHAT she is as Paperinika, she (like
Donald's "Paperinik" character) harken back to Batman and a female version of
him. The plain truth is, there is NOTHING really NEW in comics, all a creator can
do is work with whatever influences/allusions they can to create some good
storytelling and artwork. You can't truly say stories with Scrooge hunting down
ancient treasure or the Donald/Daisy/Gladstone love triangle have no precedential
material? Of course Daisy's feminism had influence from other sources already
available... maybe even, now that I think of it, Marvel's "Ms. Marvel"
superheroine, who was very much a feminist hero. DC's Huntress (the "Helena
Wayne/Batman & Catwoman's daughter" version), herself, was an assertive character,
though I forget her actual creation date (I beleive it was in the early 1960s,
though). There were many cultural issues occuring during the time of Paperinika's
creation... Feminist and Black heros were definitely on the rise in the comicbook
industry.

> Aaaaah!! Why would anyone ever hope that ["Wizards of Mickey"]? It's the hype!
WoM is just an average (sometimes even bad) story that really has no need to be
translated. There are *hundreds* of masterpieces that should be translated in
English, not this!

Well, from what I DID see of it, and could read (my Italian isn't that great), the
art was very nice and the story seemed decent enough. Of course, with my having
no input on what does and doesn't get translated, I'll probably never really know
if I would have liked it simply because I don't get to make the decisions, and
those, like you (due to your available input provided to those who do get to make
the decisions), have far more influence than I. So you and "the powers that be"
will be the ones making the decisions. *shrug* I get whatever is available, which
means I get a boat-load of Duck material, and some sparse Mouse offerings.
Thankfully David just happens to be a Mouse fan and probably has some influence
(as it seems he does).

> What you DO want to see translated is the "Spada di ghiaccio" trilogy, by
Massimo De Vita. THAT is a Masterpiece (actually THE Masterpiece) starring Mickey
(and Goofy) and dealing with magic.

See, there you are telling me, in advance, what I should want... but that's fine,
I'm totally ready for the "Ice Sword" trilogy to be tanslated for the American
audience, sure. I have some issues of Topolino (I think that's the book where it
appeared) and remember I loved the artwork for that storyline. I am a fan of
the "Mythos Island" saga and the "Sword of Shambor" as well.

As for another subject, concerning my beef with Disney and the Comics Industry:
I DON'T like about Disney Comics, at least as it relates to the Mouse & Duck
Universe. I DON'T like it when Donald, Goofy and Mickey are treated as nothing
more than "Funny Animals" by being compared to Warner Brothers' Bugs Bunny and
Daffy Duck, or others of THAT same vein. Mickey, Donald & Company are NOT just
Ducks and Mice walking around in clothes and talking, they are, for all intents
and purposes, HUMANS who just happen to be of another species. Even though Pete
is technically a "Cat-like" being, when he chases Mickey or Minnie, it is NOT to
EAT them, but because he is a villain and has some dastardly reason for doing so,
such as a scheme to rob a bank or hold them for ransome, or worse, because he is
enamoured of Minnie! Pete is NOT a Cat, he's a HUMAN who resembles a cat
(or "anthropomorphic cat"). The same goes for the rest of the Duck and Mouse
universe. Even the apparent animals are designed as real animals... Pluto is, in
most every sense of the word, a DOG. He does what a dog does (just as Humphrey,
Chip'n Dale, Figaro and others do what they, as animals, do). Goofy is NOT a Dog,
he is a HUMAN who resembles a dog. And so forth. On the OTHER HAND, Bugs Bunny
IS a Bunny (rabbit). He lives in a hole (burrow) and is hunted as food by actual
humans who resemble actual humans (even if in a silly way, such as having big red
noses or short squat bodies), they still have human noses and ears and jobs, etc.
So what I mean by this is I don't like Mickey & Company being compared to a
competitor whose characters are not similiar. I will admit, however, that Disney
DOES have its brand of similar characters (those belonging to the Forest Universe,
such as Big Bad Wolf and Br'er Rabbit), and does blur the lines at time when they
mix them in with Mickey and the gang. I am endeared to the Forest folk and even
don't mind the mixing, but I do believe there is a distinction between the Forest
Universe and the Mouse & Duck Universes. Given that I do accept Ellsworth (and
Bruto) as exceptions. The OTHER thing that saddens me is when artists or writers
throw in actual HUMAN characters in the Duck and Mouse universe. This diminishes
Mickey & Donald IMHO. There are a few I've learned to accept over the years (Hard
Haid Moe, Ranger Woodlore, the Red Wasp, Witch Hazel & even the Wizard Yensid, Mad
Madam Mim & Willie the Giant). The use of actual Humans in the Duck & Mouse
universe should be stopped/limited to those already existing if necessary. I
strongly beleive Disney creators should refrain from adding real humans into the
Duck & Mouse universes, and all such NEED for Humans should be diverted to the
typical "dogface" characters which seem to embody the average human and fill those
needs. Clarice von Scout should NEVER have migrated from "dogface" to actual
HUMAN. She was a perfect and lovely character as a dogface, and as such, she
carried on the tradition of having a dogface being the den mother of the
Chickadees (re: Captain Ramrod). I like to imagine that, the explanation for SOME
human characters like Witch Hazel, in the Mouse/Duck universe and some of
the "funny animal" types like Ellsworth, is due to the idea that Humans and "Funny
Animals" do exist, but they live in the far distant regions which border the Mouse
& Duck Universe, which does allow for some crossover, but not as a usual event.

That said, it doesn't mean I don't want any previously created stories never to be
printed in the USA that just happen to have "actual" humans presented in them... I
love Disney comics and look forward to each published issue. I just wish the
various publishing houses of Disney comics would be a little more clear on this
issue for future stories.

Thanks,

Rich
(Email removed)

---- Msg sent via CWNet - http://www.cwnet.com/

Rich wrote:

> Sure, the "point" of the story was her feminist views, I'm not
> denying or arguing that. But physically, from the standpoint of WHAT
> she is as Paperinika, she (like Donald's "Paperinik" character)
> harken back to Batman and a female version of him. The plain truth
> is, there is NOTHING really NEW in comics, all a creator can do is
> work with whatever influences/allusions they can to create some good
> storytelling and artwork.

Of course, I didn't mean that! I just think that Guido Martina (the
creator) was hardly thinking about any Marvel/DC superheroin when he
created her... I actually doubt he'd even heard of them.
But I was not implying there was anything good (or bad) in this.
He was certainly influenced, like everyone is, but hardly by that!
(When he'd created Paperinik, 4 years before, he had been influenced by
an Italian comic anti-hero called Diabolik, and by a tv spoof of it).

> early 1960s, though). There were many cultural issues occuring
> during the time of Paperinika's creation... Feminist and Black heros
> were definitely on the rise in the comicbook industry.

Yes, but in the US, not in Italy, that's why I doubt Martina cared about
those.
(Of course I may be wrong and Martina was actually a big fan of Marvel
and DC, but I never heard of this!)

> Well, from what I DID see of it, and could read (my Italian isn't
> that great), the art was very nice and the story seemed decent
> enough. Of course, with my having no input on what does and doesn't
> get translated, I'll probably never really know if I would have liked
> it simply because I don't get to make the decisions, and those, like
> you (due to your available input provided to those who do get to make
> the decisions), have far more influence than I.

I wish I had any influence at all, but I don't. But I think you have to
trust the majority of Italians (in this case) about the quality of the
stories that need be translated first. WoM is not among those. Some of
its art is good, but art isn't everything as we all know! There are
thousands of *very good* Italian (Mouse) stories better than that. And
I'm not talking only about old stuff, there are many current Mouse
stories that are extremely good and deserve translations. All of Tito
Faraci's and Casty's stories, for example.

> material, and some sparse Mouse offerings. Thankfully David just
> happens to be a Mouse fan and probably has some influence (as it
> seems he does).

I'm a Mouse fan too, that why I loathe WoM! And that's why I took the
liberty of telling you what you should want. Sorry about that, but trust
me, it's true!

Francesco