Keskustelujen arkisto

Hey Don...
Happy 75th B-Day! You haven't really aged!

Quote from user: Roger NorthQuote from user: Lars JensenQuote from user: Roger NorthI don't know about what Carl Barks would think about Flemming Anderson drawing Scrooge McDuck. Unfortunately Barks died before Anderson started working on Disney Duck comics.
No, he didn't.
I'm Sorry I didn't know that. Of Course I didn't keep track of what artist did what story back then.
I wrote about Flemming Andersen and Carl Barks earlier in this thread, Roger. But that's OK. You can't read everything.

Quote from user: CoolwaterQuote from user: Lars JensenWhen Carl Barks visited Denmark in 1994, he got a drawing Flemming Andersen had made for him. (See http://coa.inducks.org/story.php/x/DF+CBCO+22F .) Barks was very impressed.
Maybe he didn't have his glasses on in that moment ... ;)
Barks wouldn't have needed to. He had good taste. :)

And I disagree with you about Tony Strobl and Jack Bradbury, by the way. In my opinion, they were both good artists. Although I do much prefer Bradbury's Mouse work to his Duck work. I'm not sure which Wright you were referring to, but assuming you meant Kay W, I must admit I have a weakness for his Beagle Boy and Moby Duck stories. (If you meant Bill Wright, he did some excellent work on Mickey Mouse and Goofy.)

And, of course, Al Hubbard was brilliant on Fethry Duck (and Scamp). Read http://ramapithblog.blogspot.com/2009/05/sketches-for-fethry-ducks-first.html on David Gerstein's new blog.

Quote from user: Lars JensenAnd I disagree with you about Tony Strobl and Jack Bradbury, by the way. In my opinion, they were both good artists. Although I do much prefer Bradbury's Mouse work to his Duck work. I'm not sure which Wright you were referring to, but assuming you meant Kay W, I must admit I have a weakness for his Beagle Boy and Moby Duck stories. (If you meant Bill Wright, he did some excellent work on Mickey Mouse and Goofy.)
I mean Kay Wright. Some time ago, on the German Disney forum a commendable donaldist expressed the opinion that the completions of Barks's Junior Woodchucks stories by Kay Wright and companions were better than those by Daan Jippes! :D

In think there is much nostalgia that blurs the sight when it comes to an objective estimation of the old Americans. Everyone who scrawled around for the American Disney comics before 1970 is a "classic". However, in my eyes, it is the glaring sun Carl Barks whose light rays onto these little straying boulders.

Strobl and Bradbury are--acceptable (but not Kay Wright :P). I wouldn't call them actually "good" artists. Vicar, who is something like the experienced artist of the modern un-ingenious Barks-rooted "standard" style is definitely better than those two.

Quote:And, of course, Al Hubbard was brilliant on Fethry Duck (and Scamp). Read http://ramapithblog.blogspot.com/2009/05/sketches-for-fethry-ducks-first.html on David Gerstein's new blog.
That stuff maybe looked good if Hubbard had inked those shivery pencil drawings properly. :D

I don't think any of the American artists that worked for Western were anywhere near to Barks. But that doesn't make them "bad" or "poor" artists. Murray, Strobl, Moores, and Bradbury were all good artists in their own right, I just didn't like their styles for The Ducks and Duck Universe, as I'd been introduced to Barks first. Strobl did fine work, as far as I'm concerned, -especially before 1959 (as shown in his stories printed). If you've seen his pencil drawings, and compared them to the final ink work (don by others), you'd see that he was a good Duck artist. The lines are MUCH, MUCH more fluid, and much more on model than the stiff inked lines of his inkers (especially starting in 1959 printings). I don't like Kay Wright's work, or the work of any of Western's artists after 1958.
In my opinion, Murray's best work was in his 1940s work. I don't like his Mickey Mouse work (especially after 1958). His Bre'r Rabbit, Panchito and oer early work was very nice. I don't like his Ducks at all. Same for Moores. I like his Bre'r Rabbit and Mickey Mouse, but not his Ducks. Bradbury is okay. But, of course, I like Jippes, Milton, Branca, Verhagen, Gulbransson, Rota, Mau Heymans and others more.
I think that only Jippes/Milton came close to Barks, and Jippes alone, mostly when following Barks' scribble lines. Branca's work at his height approaches Barks' '60s work. Too bad he didn't pattern his style after Barks' 1948-1950 style rather than his 1961-63 style!

Okay, then here's a first for you: You can count me in for the Bolster fan club, too! :) But there's also two other great Egmont artists who started at roughly the same time (ca. 1977, when Egmont comics came into their own, imho) and never get a mention, either: Oscar Fernandez (unfortunately comparatively few stories) and Santiago Scalabroni. These three, for me, are in the same league as the more popular and much better known Vicar and Branca.

Quote from user: sirredkneeBut there's also two other great Egmont artists who started at roughly the same time (ca. 1977, when Egmont comics came into their own, imho) and never get a mention, either: Oscar Fernandez (unfortunately comparatively few stories) and Santiago Scalabroni. These three, for me, are in the same league as the more popular and much better known Vicar and Branca.
I've looked a bit through examples of their work in the Inducks now. I remember these artists very well from older publications, haven't identified them yet with names. Scalabroni is indeed quite a good one, his art drawings being quite similar to Branca's. I'd also place, however, just as Robb, Fernandez with some distance behind the others. He's okay, but not as good as Branca, Bolster and Scalabroni. He seems to have some problems especially with the Ducks' eyes. His Ducks look a bit, a bit, a bit crackpot, as if they were permanently on ecstasy or something ...

Quote:I never understood why there was so much venom toward Tony Strobl's work.
And I never understood why Paul Murry didn't get MORE venom (especially from the mouse fans) as his art declined. XD

In all seriousness, I think its the quality of his late work. His early work is wondeful IMO, but for years all I ever saw (and many others for that matter who came on board late) was his later work which was just...not good at all IMHO. =|

When I later found out that Tony Strobl had a different drawing style all together and that it was GORGEOUS, I was flabbergasted. I later learned that for whatever reason, Strobl's best later work went to the S-Coded stories which all went overseas, and the more subpar stuff was CONSTANTLY filtered through Gold Key's American comics which is what led to his rather bad reputation stateside considering that's all we were flooded with from him for years. Furthermore, its believed he was ASKED to change his detailed style the same was as Barks was to fit the scratchier and less detailed Donald model of that era - which was IMO a crying shame. The same probably went for Murry and his Mickey - though I argue that his decline had already started.

Seriously, his earlier work makes his later work look like doodoo and the same goes for Murry. Murry's earlier work is also gorgeous and I think we never got enough of it. But Strobl's decline was nowhere near as drastic as Murry's IMO. Murry's later work (in my eyes) is just awful. Awful to look at, awful to read, awful to EVERYTHING. :(

Though, both had a one up on Kay Wright whom I personally NEVER HOPE TO SEE IN ANY DISNEY COMIC BOOKS EVER AGAIN. LOL