Keskustelujen arkisto

Quote from user: LadyQuacklyIt's possible that Rosa's comics (being also considered graphic novels) were aimed toward an older reading audience, and not specifically intended for kids. But when you consider what they're showing on TV these days---even in certain children's cartoons---Rosa's double-entendres might seem a little tame by comparison.

I admit I raised my own eyebrows at the "between the legs" gag (and Goldie's expression IS priceless!); though I figured Scrooge meant it quite innocently---money being on his mind rather than sex. This likely wasn't one of Rosa's best judgment calls, but he probably never meant that story to be for small children anyway (and what some parents are exposing their kids to these days is far worse).

Meanwhile, the jury's still out on whatever transpired in that cabin...but maybe Judge Roy Bean just had his mind in the gutter. :P
The story was printed in children's magazines all over the world. And Don Rosa knew it would be. Imagine if someone walked into your child's classroom and told a smutty joke, and then it was excused with: "Hey, that joke was intended for the teacher! It was never meant for the pupils!" Would you be equally understanding?

When I read this to my kids I left off with "OK, let's get on with it". It doesn't bother me at all personally, but I didn't see it as necessary in a Disney comic, and saw no reason to invite questions from my kids about such things from same!

Don't see the big deal m'self... I reckon the innuendo will sail right over the heads of children.
I found it a humorous way to transition from that scene to the next.

I agree with Robb.
In the Dutch translations, the text was changed (obviously). The expression on Goldie's face is now totally unexplained. This should not have been necessary.

Quote from user: Henry FoxI agree with Robb.
In the Dutch translations, the text was changed (obviously). The expression on Goldie's face is now totally unexplained. This should not have been necessary.
In German the line is translated to the word. I had to laugh out loud when I first read it. I think it does make the story funnier!

Maybe it's not such a big deal. But then again why would anyone start a thread based on this if isn't?

Quote from user: Mcduck_EnterprisesI don't think it adds that much controversy. It's really not that big a deal. Most likely a kid won't get it for how its intended. If he/she does get it, they're porbably close to getting any of that stuff anyway, due to TV and the media, whathaveyou, shoving it out there. We don't live in the day an age anymore where people/kids are sheltered. There is far worse out there to watch out for than a silly one liner from a duck book. I could really care less about this line. I'd rather my 7 year old not sit thru the evening news or sitcom commercials though...... I think those that get up on a stand and condemn have just as many skeletons. Nobody's perfect. We're all human. Let it be.
My sentiments exactly. In spite of my previous post, which was more of an observation, somehow the line pretty much rolled off of me---and you're hearing this from one of the biggest prudes on the planet. But when I expressed what I felt was an objective view earlier in this thread, it seemed to have aroused some indignation.

I simply can't bring myself to get all up in arms about Scrooge's remark---maybe because I feel that the "positive" of LTo$ far outweighs the "negative". It's the same with the movie Schindler's List---there were some who went berserk over a sex scene in the film, as if that mattered more than anything else that was happening. Others (including some televangelists, believe it or not) chose not to focus on that scene, but rather on the overall message of the film.

After all, look at what's on the bookshelves for children these days...not to mention, what's in todays comics and the graphic novels---which don't exactly come with "parental advisory" labels. Look at what's on TV, even during the "family hour" (which is virtually non-existent these days). The youth of today hardly has the "innocence" that it did decades ago (if even then); and as I tried to explain earlier, the values kids are picking up from the world around them---and even from some of their parents---are far more harmful than anything they'll read in Rosa's books.

Frankly---though this is just my own opinion---I wouldn't mind it if this topic were put to rest once and for all, mainly because I've personally felt some of the remarks about Rosa and his work were rather judgmental and hurtful. I'm not invalidating the feelings of those who were offended by the "infamous" line, nor am I disrespecting their right to vent. Just show a little mercy to those of us who love and respect Rosa's work and simply don't feel the fuss is worthwhile---especially compared to more serious issues in the world.

I apologize if I've stepped on any toes, but this has been bothering me for a long time now. Considering what Mr. Rosa is going through these days, I think it's time to give the man a break.

Quote from user: Henry FoxQuote from user: LadyQuacklyConsidering what Mr. Rosa is going through these days, I think it's time to give the man a break.
The current condition of mr. Rosa doesn't make his past work any better or worse.
His condition also shouldn't stop us from discussing his past work.
That does not mean you necessarily have to continue to criticize Rosa's work, when he's seriously ill. Rosa fans up there feel uncomfortable with this, so why keeping arguing about this? isn't it completely unnecessary? why does this sentence matter so much to you?