Keskustelujen arkisto

Quote from user: Gooey98Quote from user: skritterOr maybe it is just a nostalgia thing because I grew up reading my ducks this way.
Hmm...I haven't acquired these collections yet, but I've mostly read Disney comics in general from my grandpa's old comic books. It makes me wonder if I'll get that same nostalgia from the coloring style.
Depends. How old are your grandpa's? Who's the publisher?

Quote from user: Review Or DieIt may evoke that response from you, but it doesn't from me. When I'm noticing the coloring without prompting, rather than seeing a completed picture, I end up taken from the story. And very little does more to make me notice the coloring than seeing a series of mistakes within it.
But really, there aren't very many errors. There just aren't. I mean okay okay, I'll concede that the intended colors for the grass and the wall were reversed, but I see that, and my brain automatically fills in "the wall is mossy and the grass is dead." It doesn't even slightly throw me out of the story, and I don't think that occasional things like that mean that all the old coloring is BAD BAD BAD. To me, the coloring is not only historically valuable, but it has a clean, simple look that I think is appropriate for an archival edition. Obviously, it's fine if you don't like it, but that doesn't make it objectively bad, either.

And the notion that little kids would be baffled and confused by such mistakes as there may be is just bizarre to me. I mean, I don't deny your experience, but *I* was a little kid when I first read these stories, in their original editions. Given the age and paper quality, they were significantly worse-looking than the new versions, with plenty of opportunity for idiosyncratic printing errors to have crept in, but I was never "confused," and I very much doubt children who read them contemporaneously would've been either. Fifty million fifties six-year-olds can't be wrong!

Quote from user: GeoXQuote from user: Review Or DieIt may evoke that response from you, but it doesn't from me. When I'm noticing the coloring without prompting, rather than seeing a completed picture, I end up taken from the story. And very little does more to make me notice the coloring than seeing a series of mistakes within it.
But really, there aren't very many errors. There just aren't. I mean okay okay, I'll concede that the intended colors for the grass and the wall were reversed, but I see that, and my brain automatically fills in "the wall is mossy and the grass is dead." It doesn't even slightly throw me out of the story, and I don't think that occasional things like that mean that all the old coloring is BAD BAD BAD. To me, the coloring is not only historically valuable, but it has a clean, simple look that I think is appropriate for an archival edition. Obviously, it's fine if you don't like it, but that doesn't make it objectively bad, either.

And the notion that little kids would be baffled and confused by such mistakes as there may be is just bizarre to me. I mean, I don't deny your experience, but *I* was a little kid when I first read these stories, in their original editions. Given the age and paper quality, they were significantly worse-looking than the new versions, with plenty of opportunity for idiosyncratic printing errors to have crept in, but I was never "confused," and I very much doubt children who read them contemporaneously would've been either. Fifty million fifties six-year-olds can't be wrong!
I think the point of our divergence in viewpoint is that I see no reason there should be an archival edition, as was originally printed, when things that Barks stated he disliked and had no control over were a part of that. I just see no reason why it should exist.

To put it analogous to a very old movie - way back when, you had to copy from the original masters. This degraded with each copy, lasting (as I understand it) approximately 1000 copies. Most people saw, therefore, a blurrier, grainier version of the movie than was originally shot. Audiences may have enjoyed it despite this, but if I had the chance, I would rather distribute the first copy of the masters than any of the 999 that came after it.

But as for your claim that there aren't that many mistakes... I'm sorry, that's just demonstrably and egregiously wrong. I'm going to pull up any random page of Lost in the Andes (the volume I have on hand), which turned out to be 154, and point out coloring errors.

In every panel, the speckled horses have speckles the same color as the rest of their fur. Their manes and tails should have different colors. So that's one persistent coloring error across six panels.

I'd argue that the horses being the same color as the stalls is also straight wrong.

The hay is an orange color in panels 2, 3, 4 and 8: they have a more reasonable kind of hay also in panel 3, which makes it especially strange.

Panel 4: Villain's face isn't colored in.

The interior walls are the same color code as the sky, which makes the window in panels 3 and 5 look goofy.

I mean... that's just... the whole thing is like this. If you like it, that's totally fine, but... yeah. It is wrong, it's wrong on purpose, and that's just true.

Quote from user: AzureBlueQuote from user: Gooey98Quote from user: skritterOr maybe it is just a nostalgia thing because I grew up reading my ducks this way.
Hmm...I haven't acquired these collections yet, but I've mostly read Disney comics in general from my grandpa's old comic books. It makes me wonder if I'll get that same nostalgia from the coloring style.
Depends. How old are your grandpa's? Who's the publisher?
He has tons. Seriously. He started buying them as a teenager in the late 50's, and continued getting the new ones through the Gemstone era. I've read old ones and new ones, although I actually think I've mostly read comic books published in the 80's forward.

Quote from user: GeoXCan we actually have a quote from Barks on this point? ...
He speak about it in the Norwegian documentary Duck-u-mentar. The documentary was made by the norwegian broadcasting company NRK in 1994 when Barks visited Europe.

Quote from user: Patrick HanifinPeople can change their minds, too. Carl Barks may not have liked the original comic coloring ...
The norwegian broadcasting company interviewed him in 1994, around 40 years after these comics were originally published. He mentioned a few exaples, which he found terrible. I better look at the documentary again.

Hey, it's all good. I can certainly understand either point of view, and as I said, I could go either way. I certainly don't want to denigrate SDL's excellent work.
You wanna see some REALLY dire Western coloring, just take a look at any of Dark Horse's color Little Lulu reprints. Color that only approximately fits in the space its supposed to go, random blobs of ink here and there for no reason...not a pretty sight. It would obviously be completely unacceptable if the Barks books looked like that. I think the idea--correct me if I'm wrong; I'm no expert--is that they look like what the Western comics in theory would have looked like, given really sophisticated printing technology and high-quality paper. It does make a world of difference, and I wonder what Barks would've thought about it.