>>>>> my knowledge of Elliott was limited to the aforementioned comic books,
published by Dell.
>>>>> Which was a pointer in the direction, as you probably figured the
reference to Dell founder
>>>>> George Delacorte with the videophone bellydancer Rita Delacorte a few
strips earlier.
Gosh, I'm ashamed to say I had not realized this, even though that's one
strip I picked.
I should have been more careful; in my defense, all I can say is that I was
mostly focused
on what panels to use, and what words needed explaining-- and I haven't read
about
Mr. Delacorte in a long while.
Darn, this was an obvious one, too.
>>>> Are you doing an expo of some kind, or a very limited print run fan
publication?
Nope, just a little homework for my students: comment on the panel(s) or
strips;
more specifically, they have to discuss the invention depicted and the use
of humor
(What is funny? Why? What kind of humor is it? How is it created?)
I have chosen enough panels and strips so that only two students within a
group
have the same one.
Thanks again, Ole!
Olivier
Author
Topic: 201204
(31 messages)
Olivier
Ham Mock?
Message 16 -
2012-04-09 at 13:31:30
Germund Von Wowern
Orange juice in Duck comics
Message 17 -
2012-04-09 at 13:35:33
Orange juice in duck comics? No bell rings immediately, but there's apparently this one:
http://coa.inducks.org/story.php?c=B+780351a
I instantly come to think of the (non-Disney) Casey Ruggles episode Black Barney from the spring of 1950, in which the villain (Black Barney) intends to wipe out sin and have everyone drink orange juice (don't be fooled, he's a much more murderous character than you'd imagine).
/Germund
http://coa.inducks.org/story.php?c=B+780351a
I instantly come to think of the (non-Disney) Casey Ruggles episode Black Barney from the spring of 1950, in which the villain (Black Barney) intends to wipe out sin and have everyone drink orange juice (don't be fooled, he's a much more murderous character than you'd imagine).
/Germund
Stefan Diös
Orange juice in Duck Comics
Message 18 -
2012-04-09 at 13:50:22
Robert Hutchings:
>Does anyone recall reference to orange juice in any duck comic from
>the 1940s, 1950s, or 1960s? The only that I know of is in "Island in
>the Sky" (1959) where the nephews open cans of orange juice only to
>discover they're actually cans of rocket fuel.
On the last page of "Riches, Riches, Everywhere" by Barks (US 11,
1955), set in Australia, the nephews bring their thirsty uncles some
orange juice that they got "from a store in the town where the
kangaroos took us".
Stefan Dios
Bromma, Sweden
>Does anyone recall reference to orange juice in any duck comic from
>the 1940s, 1950s, or 1960s? The only that I know of is in "Island in
>the Sky" (1959) where the nephews open cans of orange juice only to
>discover they're actually cans of rocket fuel.
On the last page of "Riches, Riches, Everywhere" by Barks (US 11,
1955), set in Australia, the nephews bring their thirsty uncles some
orange juice that they got "from a store in the town where the
kangaroos took us".
Stefan Dios
Bromma, Sweden
Stefan Diös
Orange juice in Duck Comics
Message 19 -
2012-04-09 at 13:50:22
Robert Hutchings:
>Does anyone recall reference to orange juice in any duck comic from
>the 1940s, 1950s, or 1960s? The only that I know of is in "Island in
>the Sky" (1959) where the nephews open cans of orange juice only to
>discover they're actually cans of rocket fuel.
On the last page of "Riches, Riches, Everywhere" by Barks (US 11,
1955), set in Australia, the nephews bring their thirsty uncles some
orange juice that they got "from a store in the town where the
kangaroos took us".
Stefan Dios
Bromma, Sweden
>Does anyone recall reference to orange juice in any duck comic from
>the 1940s, 1950s, or 1960s? The only that I know of is in "Island in
>the Sky" (1959) where the nephews open cans of orange juice only to
>discover they're actually cans of rocket fuel.
On the last page of "Riches, Riches, Everywhere" by Barks (US 11,
1955), set in Australia, the nephews bring their thirsty uncles some
orange juice that they got "from a store in the town where the
kangaroos took us".
Stefan Dios
Bromma, Sweden
Gary Leach
Mr. Hamm
Message 20 -
2012-04-09 at 19:14:39
Ole:
> Good point. I found my own suggestion a little far fetched myself.
> Even if this is not a Barks story?
Which it wasn't, my mistake. I did not mean to slight Bill Walsh. All those years working on all that Barks material seems to have locked my brain into an "If it's Gladstone, it's Barks!" loop!
Gary
> Good point. I found my own suggestion a little far fetched myself.
> Even if this is not a Barks story?
Which it wasn't, my mistake. I did not mean to slight Bill Walsh. All those years working on all that Barks material seems to have locked my brain into an "If it's Gladstone, it's Barks!" loop!
Gary
Cato Elder
Possible Joke
Message 21 -
2012-04-10 at 04:17:58
Greetings!
Ole asked: ? a look at Barks' W WDC 151 story, The Easter Parade
Marshall. One
of several stories where an editor decided to change the dialogue.
After Gladstone has poured kerosene over Donald's candy, and the
children are understandably angry with him, on page 4, panel 4, Donald
says "Well, I'll show him that CLEAN play can beat dirty play,
anytime!"
Not really funny, is it? Now, to me, it looks as if the word "play" on
both occasions have been substituted for slightly longer words, probably
by
Barks' own hand.
What would be a funny pun here, and one which needed to be edited?
I'm thinking that maybe the line should read: "...clean sweets can
beat dirty treats..."!
Two idiomatic expressions, clean sheet, and dirty linen, are implied -
which might be considered inappropriate in a children's book.
Also dirty tricks are jumping to mind (trick or treat), and sweets and
treats rhyme...But perhaps first language English speakers can puzzle out
the
original funny better?
Ole: it is hard to say what might have happened. ? "CLEAN treats can beat
dirty tricks" does not seem to need censoring, and neither does
"sweets...treats."? I checked the panel and it does seem that a longer
word might have been replaced by "play."
"Dirty pool" (not a longer word, unfortunately) implies that one starts
to play "pool" (i.e. billiards)? with an opponent, and one pretends at
first to have little skill, losing a game or two.? Then one says to the
opponent "How about a wager?? Maybe I'll play better under pressure."?
And then with money on the line one's real skill overwhelms the opponent.
It is hard to say if even that would be too obscure or somehow
objectionable for kids in the 1950's.? (I would say no, but who knows?)
Maybe "CLEAN ducks can beat dirty ganders... "? [IMAGE]
Or "CLEAN play can beat dirty cheaters..."
Agreed: not really funny!? [IMAGE]?
(Perhaps a joke was not originally intended, but a life lesson?? If so,
then the point is clear with "clean play" vs.? "dirty play.")
Best Wishes!
L. Schulte
--
You Rock! Your E-Mail Should Too! Signup Now at Rock.com and get 4GB of Storage!
http://connections.rock.com/user/displayUserRegisterPage.kickAction?as=116748&STATUS=MAIN
Ole asked: ? a look at Barks' W WDC 151 story, The Easter Parade
Marshall. One
of several stories where an editor decided to change the dialogue.
After Gladstone has poured kerosene over Donald's candy, and the
children are understandably angry with him, on page 4, panel 4, Donald
says "Well, I'll show him that CLEAN play can beat dirty play,
anytime!"
Not really funny, is it? Now, to me, it looks as if the word "play" on
both occasions have been substituted for slightly longer words, probably
by
Barks' own hand.
What would be a funny pun here, and one which needed to be edited?
I'm thinking that maybe the line should read: "...clean sweets can
beat dirty treats..."!
Two idiomatic expressions, clean sheet, and dirty linen, are implied -
which might be considered inappropriate in a children's book.
Also dirty tricks are jumping to mind (trick or treat), and sweets and
treats rhyme...But perhaps first language English speakers can puzzle out
the
original funny better?
Ole: it is hard to say what might have happened. ? "CLEAN treats can beat
dirty tricks" does not seem to need censoring, and neither does
"sweets...treats."? I checked the panel and it does seem that a longer
word might have been replaced by "play."
"Dirty pool" (not a longer word, unfortunately) implies that one starts
to play "pool" (i.e. billiards)? with an opponent, and one pretends at
first to have little skill, losing a game or two.? Then one says to the
opponent "How about a wager?? Maybe I'll play better under pressure."?
And then with money on the line one's real skill overwhelms the opponent.
It is hard to say if even that would be too obscure or somehow
objectionable for kids in the 1950's.? (I would say no, but who knows?)
Maybe "CLEAN ducks can beat dirty ganders... "? [IMAGE]
Or "CLEAN play can beat dirty cheaters..."
Agreed: not really funny!? [IMAGE]?
(Perhaps a joke was not originally intended, but a life lesson?? If so,
then the point is clear with "clean play" vs.? "dirty play.")
Best Wishes!
L. Schulte
--
You Rock! Your E-Mail Should Too! Signup Now at Rock.com and get 4GB of Storage!
http://connections.rock.com/user/displayUserRegisterPage.kickAction?as=116748&STATUS=MAIN
Cato Elder
Possible Joke
Message 22 -
2012-04-10 at 04:17:58
Greetings!
Ole asked: ? a look at Barks' W WDC 151 story, The Easter Parade
Marshall. One
of several stories where an editor decided to change the dialogue.
After Gladstone has poured kerosene over Donald's candy, and the
children are understandably angry with him, on page 4, panel 4, Donald
says "Well, I'll show him that CLEAN play can beat dirty play,
anytime!"
Not really funny, is it? Now, to me, it looks as if the word "play" on
both occasions have been substituted for slightly longer words, probably
by
Barks' own hand.
What would be a funny pun here, and one which needed to be edited?
I'm thinking that maybe the line should read: "...clean sweets can
beat dirty treats..."!
Two idiomatic expressions, clean sheet, and dirty linen, are implied -
which might be considered inappropriate in a children's book.
Also dirty tricks are jumping to mind (trick or treat), and sweets and
treats rhyme...But perhaps first language English speakers can puzzle out
the
original funny better?
Ole: it is hard to say what might have happened. ? "CLEAN treats can beat
dirty tricks" does not seem to need censoring, and neither does
"sweets...treats."? I checked the panel and it does seem that a longer
word might have been replaced by "play."
"Dirty pool" (not a longer word, unfortunately) implies that one starts
to play "pool" (i.e. billiards)? with an opponent, and one pretends at
first to have little skill, losing a game or two.? Then one says to the
opponent "How about a wager?? Maybe I'll play better under pressure."?
And then with money on the line one's real skill overwhelms the opponent.
It is hard to say if even that would be too obscure or somehow
objectionable for kids in the 1950's.? (I would say no, but who knows?)
Maybe "CLEAN ducks can beat dirty ganders... "? [IMAGE]
Or "CLEAN play can beat dirty cheaters..."
Agreed: not really funny!? [IMAGE]?
(Perhaps a joke was not originally intended, but a life lesson?? If so,
then the point is clear with "clean play" vs.? "dirty play.")
Best Wishes!
L. Schulte
--
You Rock! Your E-Mail Should Too! Signup Now at Rock.com and get 4GB of Storage!
http://connections.rock.com/user/displayUserRegisterPage.kickAction?as=116748&STATUS=MAIN
Ole asked: ? a look at Barks' W WDC 151 story, The Easter Parade
Marshall. One
of several stories where an editor decided to change the dialogue.
After Gladstone has poured kerosene over Donald's candy, and the
children are understandably angry with him, on page 4, panel 4, Donald
says "Well, I'll show him that CLEAN play can beat dirty play,
anytime!"
Not really funny, is it? Now, to me, it looks as if the word "play" on
both occasions have been substituted for slightly longer words, probably
by
Barks' own hand.
What would be a funny pun here, and one which needed to be edited?
I'm thinking that maybe the line should read: "...clean sweets can
beat dirty treats..."!
Two idiomatic expressions, clean sheet, and dirty linen, are implied -
which might be considered inappropriate in a children's book.
Also dirty tricks are jumping to mind (trick or treat), and sweets and
treats rhyme...But perhaps first language English speakers can puzzle out
the
original funny better?
Ole: it is hard to say what might have happened. ? "CLEAN treats can beat
dirty tricks" does not seem to need censoring, and neither does
"sweets...treats."? I checked the panel and it does seem that a longer
word might have been replaced by "play."
"Dirty pool" (not a longer word, unfortunately) implies that one starts
to play "pool" (i.e. billiards)? with an opponent, and one pretends at
first to have little skill, losing a game or two.? Then one says to the
opponent "How about a wager?? Maybe I'll play better under pressure."?
And then with money on the line one's real skill overwhelms the opponent.
It is hard to say if even that would be too obscure or somehow
objectionable for kids in the 1950's.? (I would say no, but who knows?)
Maybe "CLEAN ducks can beat dirty ganders... "? [IMAGE]
Or "CLEAN play can beat dirty cheaters..."
Agreed: not really funny!? [IMAGE]?
(Perhaps a joke was not originally intended, but a life lesson?? If so,
then the point is clear with "clean play" vs.? "dirty play.")
Best Wishes!
L. Schulte
--
You Rock! Your E-Mail Should Too! Signup Now at Rock.com and get 4GB of Storage!
http://connections.rock.com/user/displayUserRegisterPage.kickAction?as=116748&STATUS=MAIN
Ole Nielsen
Possible joke
Message 23 -
2012-04-10 at 23:34:21
"Cato Elder" wrote:
> Ole: it is hard to say what might have happened. "CLEAN treats can beat
> dirty tricks" does not seem to need censoring, and neither does
> "sweets...treats." I checked the panel and it does seem that a longer word
> might have been replaced by "play."
>
Curiously enough you quoted me, as I actually intended it, rather than as
I wrote it. This version is my preferred presumed original wording.
Possibly Barks simply realized that a pun on Halloween's "trick or treat"
didn't fit in an Easter story, and omitted it for possible later use,
without substituting it with a different funny.
(Perhaps a joke was not originally intended, but a life lesson? If so,
> then the point is clear with "clean play" vs. "dirty play.")
>
Barks' stories are smack-full of moral lessons on life, but Donald is
hardly ever the one to deliver the straight lines. Not unless he sticks
with them, even when the hard facts of real life truths trump his good
intentions, which was his recurring story theme around this time. There are
quite a few twists in the course of this story though and I'm still curious
to what the original wording was.
Just as it would be very interesting to know what Donald's *real* answer in
the last panel of WDC 152 to the talking dog's "Times are tough, huh,
bud?". Not "You're not kiddin'!" which again has been lettered distictively
different.
Will the owner of the original artwork please allow it to be scrutinized
under UV light or X-rays, or we'll never know for sure.
Btw, doesn't an owl see in the dark and catch mice?
- ole
> Ole: it is hard to say what might have happened. "CLEAN treats can beat
> dirty tricks" does not seem to need censoring, and neither does
> "sweets...treats." I checked the panel and it does seem that a longer word
> might have been replaced by "play."
>
Curiously enough you quoted me, as I actually intended it, rather than as
I wrote it. This version is my preferred presumed original wording.
Possibly Barks simply realized that a pun on Halloween's "trick or treat"
didn't fit in an Easter story, and omitted it for possible later use,
without substituting it with a different funny.
(Perhaps a joke was not originally intended, but a life lesson? If so,
> then the point is clear with "clean play" vs. "dirty play.")
>
Barks' stories are smack-full of moral lessons on life, but Donald is
hardly ever the one to deliver the straight lines. Not unless he sticks
with them, even when the hard facts of real life truths trump his good
intentions, which was his recurring story theme around this time. There are
quite a few twists in the course of this story though and I'm still curious
to what the original wording was.
Just as it would be very interesting to know what Donald's *real* answer in
the last panel of WDC 152 to the talking dog's "Times are tough, huh,
bud?". Not "You're not kiddin'!" which again has been lettered distictively
different.
Will the owner of the original artwork please allow it to be scrutinized
under UV light or X-rays, or we'll never know for sure.
Btw, doesn't an owl see in the dark and catch mice?
- ole
Hf
Times are tough
Message 24 -
2012-04-12 at 13:20:06
Ole:
> Just as it would be very interesting to know what Donald's *real* answer
in
> the last panel of WDC 152 to the talking dog's "Times are tough, huh,
> bud?". Not "You're not kiddin'!" which again has been lettered
distictively
> different.
My first guess is "Shut up!", which is still considered too rude for
children in the USA.
> Btw, doesn't an owl see in the dark and catch mice?
"That is a correct answer, but not what I have on the card." - I hear that a
lot in English quiz shows...
--Harry.
> Just as it would be very interesting to know what Donald's *real* answer
in
> the last panel of WDC 152 to the talking dog's "Times are tough, huh,
> bud?". Not "You're not kiddin'!" which again has been lettered
distictively
> different.
My first guess is "Shut up!", which is still considered too rude for
children in the USA.
> Btw, doesn't an owl see in the dark and catch mice?
"That is a correct answer, but not what I have on the card." - I hear that a
lot in English quiz shows...
--Harry.
Simone Cavazzuti
Scrooge's strip
Message 25 -
2012-04-12 at 19:28:21
Hi all!
Can somebody provide a scan of this strip in a better resolution?
http://coa.inducks.org/story.php?c=ZD+60-07-17
Simone Cavazzuti
Can somebody provide a scan of this strip in a better resolution?
http://coa.inducks.org/story.php?c=ZD+60-07-17
Simone Cavazzuti
Robert Hutchings
Orange juice
Message 26 -
2012-04-13 at 04:00:11
Thanks to all who emailed back recollections of references to orange juice in the comics. Very much appreciated!
Robert Hutchings
Robert Hutchings
Marco Barlotti
Scrroge's strip
Message 27 -
2012-04-13 at 17:42:06
Simone Cavazzuti wrote:
> Can somebody provide a scan of this strip in a better resolution?
> http://coa.inducks.org/story.php?c=ZD+60-07-17
I wrote privately to Simone, telling him how to find the scan he needs...
Marco
http://marcobar.outducks.org/Comics
>
> Can somebody provide a scan of this strip in a better resolution?
> http://coa.inducks.org/story.php?c=ZD+60-07-17
I wrote privately to Simone, telling him how to find the scan he needs...
Marco
http://marcobar.outducks.org/Comics
>
Fernand31
Scrooge's strip
Message 28 -
2012-04-13 at 23:20:02
Here it is:
http://dcf.outducks.org/contrib/img/RgEpNp_8Vb68d.jpeg
Le jeudi 12 avril 2012 18:31:53 UTC+2, Simone Cavazzuti a ?crit?:
> Hi all!
>
> Can somebody provide a scan of this strip in a better resolution?
>
> http://coa.inducks.org/story.php?c=ZD+60-07-17
>
> Simone Cavazzuti
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> http://nafsk.se/mailman/listinfo/dcml
http://dcf.outducks.org/contrib/img/RgEpNp_8Vb68d.jpeg
Le jeudi 12 avril 2012 18:31:53 UTC+2, Simone Cavazzuti a ?crit?:
> Hi all!
>
> Can somebody provide a scan of this strip in a better resolution?
>
> http://coa.inducks.org/story.php?c=ZD+60-07-17
>
> Simone Cavazzuti
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> http://nafsk.se/mailman/listinfo/dcml
Ole Nielsen
Times are tough
Message 29 -
2012-04-14 at 02:02:06
Harry wrote:
> > Just as it would be very interesting to know what Donald's *real* answer
> in
> > the last panel of WDC 152 to the talking dog's "Times are tough, huh,
> > bud?". Not "You're not kiddin'!" which again has been lettered
> distictively
> > different.
>
> My first guess is "Shut up!", which is still considered too rude for
> children in the USA.
>
Why, of course! "Oh, shut up!" seems to fit with the bubble, and a
perfectly ironic comment in a story about a talking dog!
Case closed. :-)
> > Btw, doesn't an owl see in the dark and catch mice?
>
> "That is a correct answer, but not what I have on the card." - I hear that
> a
> lot in English quiz shows...
Then English (or perhaps you mean American) quiz shows are stupid. In my
country a correct answer is correct, even if it has to be verified later.
There are historic examples of quiz contestants being given a second
chance, when the quiz meister didn't recognize their answers to be equally
correct. But maybe that is only a thing of the past. Occasionally in
today's shows the questions are poorly phrased, and you have to guess the
question that *should* have been asked.
- ole
> > Just as it would be very interesting to know what Donald's *real* answer
> in
> > the last panel of WDC 152 to the talking dog's "Times are tough, huh,
> > bud?". Not "You're not kiddin'!" which again has been lettered
> distictively
> > different.
>
> My first guess is "Shut up!", which is still considered too rude for
> children in the USA.
>
Why, of course! "Oh, shut up!" seems to fit with the bubble, and a
perfectly ironic comment in a story about a talking dog!
Case closed. :-)
> > Btw, doesn't an owl see in the dark and catch mice?
>
> "That is a correct answer, but not what I have on the card." - I hear that
> a
> lot in English quiz shows...
Then English (or perhaps you mean American) quiz shows are stupid. In my
country a correct answer is correct, even if it has to be verified later.
There are historic examples of quiz contestants being given a second
chance, when the quiz meister didn't recognize their answers to be equally
correct. But maybe that is only a thing of the past. Occasionally in
today's shows the questions are poorly phrased, and you have to guess the
question that *should* have been asked.
- ole
Simone Cavazzuti
Scrooge's strip
Message 30 -
2012-04-14 at 17:53:43
Thank you Marco and Fernan!
Simone
Simone