Keskustelujen arkisto

So Scrooge promted Goldie! Of course he was meaning for her to proceed between and under the massive legs of the frozen mammoth on their way to his claim on White Agony Creek. From Rosa's latest story, "The Prisoner of White Agony Creek." It leaves the reader to wonder if Scrooge knew what he was saying or if he was innocently cluless. I tend to think it was the former. From his expression of exaggerated casualness I think he knew exactly what he was saying and chose the words of his inuendo carefully. And Goldie's expression was priceless. I literally laughed outloud!
Still I'm surprised that Gemstone and particularly Disney didn't balk at the risque expression...

Quote from user: ScroodudeI think Goldie just took it the wrong way. I think this was the reason, as well as of course the implied sex scene, that this story was not published in the regular Uncle Scrooge title. It would have certainly hurt their chances for a nomination for "Best Title for a Younger Audience" for next year's Eisners. Come to think of it, I remember reading somewhere about Rosa not being happy about the award, so this story could be read as his response to that. I thought it was entertaining and interesting to read a more adult-oriented Duck story without quite getting into Fritz the Cat territory.
It's a shame that "White Agony" wasn't published as its own Uncle Scrooge issue, with that gorgeous cover of Scrooge, Goldie and the three "greatest lawmen of the West" holding them at gunpoint. It's the only L&T story not released so. I'm still hoping that Gemstone will do so in the future. And the TPB lacks the quality of the square-bound publication??the paper is not glossy and therefore the ink bleeds into the paper and the lines and colors are not nearly as crisp and clean. Plus, the registration is not as sharp. But I guess you get what you pay for?¦

Quote from user: Gyro GearlooseThere was quite a bit of discussion about the tastelessness of Prisoner of White Agony Creek on the English-language section of the Dutch Disney forum, and speculation about whether Rosa's over-stepping of the bounds of good taste would hurt him with his worshipping readers. Apparently it hasn't, judging from the above responses, but I still think it was unforgivable. Rosa's apparent hatred of "children's" comics has taken him into territory unacceptable in a Disney comic.

The great Disney comics--Barks, Gottfredon's, Van Horn's, and company, can be enjoyed and safely read by anyone from 4 (the age I began reading them) to 94. Rosa has always attempted to make his stories less accessible to children, with his over-complicated historical data and complicated fictional timelines (Barks always knew just how many historical facts to use in a story, and never weighed the tale down by trying to demonstrate his knowledge). Now he appears to want to make his comics even more inappropriate for children. As a member of the Dutch forum said, Rosa has always drawn his duck stories somewhat in the style of Robert Crumb; now he's decided to write them in the style of Robert Crumb.

Don't get me wrong; Rosa has done some good and funny stories (His Majesty McDuck, The Black Knight, A Matter of Some Gravity, Nobody's Business, and a few others) but his obsession with literalizing the Ducks' world and the uncritical adulation he gets from fans has really caused his talents to go to seed. His much-discussed retirement would probablybe the best thing for him; perhaps he can relax and realize that he doesn't have to try and "push the envelope" with every story.
Well said. I agree 100%!

I did´nt find the "between the legs" panel tasteless at all! On the contrary, I think it was a very funny remark. It may not be in the "classic" Disney style of the forties and fifties and nor should it be. The times are always changing and so is peoples sense of what can be said and done. I´m sure children at 11-12 would find that remark funny. What I´m saying is, let´s not be prudish.

Quote from user: MorequackIt was clearly a funny remark. And perfectly appropriate, for an adult reader. (As I said, I laughed outloud.) Not appropriate for my 9-year-old son and my 11-year-old daughter to "hear" Scrooge??our hero??utter such a remark to a woman, even in jest. Whether my children would find it funny or not is irrelevant. As parents we shouldn't have to worry about having to pre-screen UNCLE SCROOGE for our children. The Disney company is well aware of this. Their reputation is built upon it. UNCLE SCROOGE is, after all, a children's comic.
I agree again. All that's gained is a small joke, and the general image of Disney comics is compromised. It's not worth it.

I'm not a prude, and don't want to shelter children from life. I understand that a lot of 8 and 9 myear olds will know what Rosa means there. Very young children won't, but one could say that it's all right, as it would just "go over their heads". I don't see any danger to the children from putting such quotes in stories. It's just a matter of style and taste, and Disney's image. It just doesn't seem to fit, and seems forced (to make a point).
I don't think the image of Disney needs to be "updated".
When could the artists/writers NOT show a kiss? Death WAS mentioned and implied in Disney Comics all along. Firearms have been shown, and used, all along. Disney just doesn't like toshow graphic views of bodies being maimed or characters getting killed. I'm not against children seeing humans' nude bodies. They should definately not be shielded from life.
What bothers me is that Rosa's drawing, combined with the text shows Scrooge being rude to Goldie, and saying something in bad taste (also in a flippant manner). But what I have against it MOST, is that it smacks of Rosa WANTING STRONGLY to show the reader that he's cleverly making this double entendre. It just seems forced, and that it doesn't belong, and stands out like a sore thumb. It takes the reader (at least ME) out of the story.

Rob, you´re right! It does do something to the flow of the story. It stands out. And yes, Scrooge is being rude to Goldie. The question is, if it´s out of character for YOUNG inexperienced Scrooge. It´s certainly out of character for the older mature Scrooge, no doubt. I see it as a remark from young Scrooge who has just been cheated by Goldie and therefore don´t have a lot of respect for her.
I´m glad to hear that you don´t believe in shielding children from the facts of life, such as nudity, sex etc. Of course, things like that has to be explained in a way befitting their age.
As for death and violence etc. in Disney comics, I was thinking of of a story like "Darkest Africa" where a lot of words and drawings has been changed, f.ex. "cannibals" become "assistance", "savages" becomes "natives", a panel saying "ya! and if you no tell us by moonrise, we eatum! yum! yum!" , showing two cannibals licking their mouths, was deleted etc. etc. All in the name of "political correctness", I guess. It´s just an example of what was ok yesterday, is suddenly not ok today. And vice versa of course.

Morequack, yes, morals has changed and I don´t mean to imply that it´s always for the better, because it´s not. As you say, it´s a matter of where to draw the line, when to censore and when not to. Difficult questions indeed! I properbly would have let this panel slip by and another one would not. I think you´re on to something when you say that European standards are more liberal. That may well be the reason why we view that panel differently. I think a young Scrooge could very well act like that, but not the old mature Scrooge.
Btw, you´re not the only one who don´t like to see porn mags in childrens eye level! Many Europeans feel the same way. If it was up to me, those mags would have "neutral" non-pornographic covers and placed out of childrens reach! The rules and regulations are too lenient in this regard.

Rob & Morequack: I´m sorry for implying you were prudish. I take that remark back. I was out of line. My European "liberal" standards carried me away for a moment. Sorry!

I too will climb off the soapbox...:)

Quote from user: SpreaI don't really understand why a 9-year-old boy or girl should see anything at all in that sentence. Only adults do - and chuckle - children don't...
Are you sure?