Keskustelujen arkisto

Hi

"The Prisoner of White Agony Creek" didn't come out in Poland yet (but their plaining to publish it this year)

However I took a pick at the On-line version and I have mix-up filing about the joke on the end of this page :

http://disneycomics.free.fr/Ducks/Rosa/agony/05.html

At one point I think it's a good thing Disney comics are trying to reach for the older audience? Bah! I was usually the one to say it wont hurt if Disney comic?s will be little less Political correct once a while and wont be afraid to refer to some more mature topics like religion for example [which appeared very rarely, outside of Don Rosa?s work]

?But on other hand having a sex jokes in a Uncel Scrooge comic?! There?s something disturbing about it. While the joke about Donald not wanting the boy?s to know what happened in valley (at the start of the story) fells more discrete, the ?Between the legs? joke felt to obvious for a Disney comic book and was very near of crossing the line of good taste.

I respect Don Rosa and all his work very much and I will buy this story as soon it will came out in Poland (this comic look's fantastic), but I rely thing he could do this sort of humor more subtle and discrete in the future?

I mean what next?

Huey ? Hey Unca Donald, where you been all night?

Donald ? I was at aunt Daisy house?

Dewey ? What your where doing there all this time?

Donald ? We? Eeee?. I? I Was fixing here roof! Yes, the roof?

Louie ? At night?

Donald ? OK! You know what? I?m rely Duck Avanger, Ok? I spend all night chasing criminals and nothing else happened! Ok? Now eat your breakfast and stop asking silly question?s! It?s time for church?

(Ok, I got carry away with the last sentence ;-))

Yours

Maciek

Dear Gilles,

This is a different source, but in David Gerstein's
2005 book, "Mickey and the Gang," on page 20 he writes
the following:

"GH's (Good Housekeeping Magazine's) version of Hen
was expanded into a full-length prose story twice:
first for Mickey Mouse and His Friends (1937), a
storybook published by Thomas Nelson and Sons, and
then for Walt Disney's Comics and Stories 18 (1942).
Interestingly, both stories' authors avoided
identifying the Duck star as Donald. Mickey Mouse
author Jean Ayer renamed him "Daniel," with Peter (the
pig) becoming "Patsy" for good measure. WDC&S called
Donald simply "the Duck" and erased him from Tom
Wood's vignettes. Presumably the goal was to avoid
confusion with the mature version of Donald visible
elsewhere in the publications."

Hope that helps!

Robert Hutchings

____________________________________________________________________________________
Take the Internet to Go: Yahoo!Go puts the Internet in your pocket: mail, news, photos & more.
http://mobile.yahoo.com/go?refer=1GNXIC

I was wondering just how long it would take for somebody to get to that. I'm
surprised that when it originally came out in its origin printing it didn't
cause more of a furor than this.

Personally, when I saw the line I howled. I found absolutely nothing wrong
with it. It's not like there were any jokes followed by UNF UNF UNF or wild
thrustings going on in the next panel or something. Sure one can argue that,
"Well it's Disney comics man! Comics are meant for kids! NO DOUBLE
ENTENDRE'S ARE NEEDED HERE! SHOO! SCAT! GIT!" but in this case its not as if
it were raunchy or flat out lewd or blatant or whatever.

It's kinda like....

If you're a kid, that joke is going to go so far over your head unless
you're just well beyond your years on certain things. If you're an adult its
something to snicker at and keep on reading. No sense in being prudish and
making a big deal about it. Now if we were actually getting jokes of a
sexual nature and it went beyond just that one line, THEN I'd complain about
it, cause something like that is just plain tacky and uncalled for. But I
think that the joke was tasteful enough that it wasnt tacky and was actually
quite silly in retrospect. A line should be drawn somewhere I think (after
all, we don't want Pegleg Pete turning into Fritz the Cat ;)) but we don't
want our scrappy and witty Mickey and Minnie turning into a saccharine and
sanitized Archie and Betty either.

Is it any different from Floyd Gottfredson drawing curvaceous pinup girls
(Mimi in "The World of Tomorrow" or Drusilla in "House of Mystery") in
Mickey Mouse comics or to put a more modern spin on it Jessica Rabbit who
"isn't bad but is just drawn that way" in both the movie and the respective
comics? To the more traditional type, perhaps, but others milages may vary.
Something to ponder about, because in the end its all about taste and
everyones tastes and definitions thereof *do* differ.

On a side note: I personally like my comics more when A) they don't talk
down to me and treat me like I have a brain and a personality B) don't read
like sanitized regurgitated kiddie pap and C) aren't violent and/or lewd for
violence and lewdnesses sake. I always have been like this - even as a kid
which is why I was very picky about my comics. Disney in particular - minus
that utterly horrid Marvel expiriment with the DA generation characters -
has been pretty good about that. I see no difference here.

Jonathan H. Gray

>From: "Francesco Spreafico" <francesco.spreafico at gmail.com>
>To: <dcml at nafsk.se>
>Subject: Re: A very "adult" joke in "The Prisoner of White Agony Creek"
>Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2007 15:15:53 +0200
>
>GGK wrote:
>
> > ?But on other hand having a sex jokes in a Uncel Scrooge comic?!
>
>I see no problem in that joke. A kid who doesn't know anything about sex
>will see nothing strange in it. Someone, older, who knows about sex, will
>just grin for the joke. And that's pretty much it, isn't it?
>
>Francesco
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>http://nafsk.se/mailman/listinfo/dcml

_________________________________________________________________
Messenger Caf? ? open for fun 24/7. Hot games, cool activities served daily.
Visit now. http://cafemessenger.com?ocid=TXT_TAGHM_AugHMtagline