I have to be honest here.
I only just purchased the story recently having avoided buying it for quite a while. One of the biggest reasons is because I'm not a big Pat Block fan. His artwork isn't really my cup of tea (too much of a Barks imitator and a lack of proper perspective in his art). That and his shorter stories don't really do much to really get me to care about the characters and what they are doing. This is not always the case as i like some of his earlier Gladstone II DDA stuff. I think Mystery at Widows Gap, Secret of the Dragon's Den, Three Little Cupids, and Too Late for Christmas are probably his best works while The Poorest Duck in Duckburg suffers from an odd plot, a rather contrived reliance of Witch Hazel given her first use by him, and an equally strange slightly out of character premise on behalf of Scrooge. However, all that aside, I am kind of leaning towards the opinion that the bulk of his Egmont/Gemstone material that we have seen since Gemstone restarted the line lacks terribly.
Furthermore - in reference to the story itself - I'm not a big Argus McSwine fan either. There's a few stories that I like by Barks and a few stories where I liked him as drawn by Branca, but overall he's so much of a generic villain that oftentimes his status as such tends to work against him if the story itself is very generic. To that end I am actually rather glad that William Van Horn and Don Rosa don't tend to use him too often. Because of his purposeful genericness he does not command the intense rivalry of Flintheart Glomgold, or the tenaciousness of The Beagle Boys, or the dangerousness of Magica DeSpell. He serves his purposes when he is used well (for instance I think the Milkman story and perhaps Forbidden Valley by Barks REALLY define the character, who he is, and how his selfish goals tend to be - be he McSwine or someone who generically looks like him in pigface). But for the most part if used in a manner that is TOO generic and uninteresting he comes off more of a petty, one-dimensional annoyance/thief if than anything else.
Having said that - while McSwine was perfectly in tune with his "Milkman" persona and the craftiness of his "Forbidden Valley" counterpart. It felt a little clumsy in its execution. Certainly not Barks's best work with a character whom he admitted he used as a generic catch-all anyway, but also not utterly terrible. Furthermore - I compare this story to Horsing Around With History which was SUPERBLY drawn by William Van Horn. Much like "Nowhere" was his last real fully fleshed Donald adventure, "History" was his last real fully fleshed Scrooge adventure and while it was paced as slowly as "Nowhere" was, it succeeded in its endeavor largely because A) the artwork carried and complimented it extremely well and B) its progression towards the final revelation with the albatross, the surprise appearance of the Beagles, and the Trojan Horse was VERY natural.
I can't really say the same for Nowhere as I think that in more experienced hands this would have felt like a marvellous story: perhaps jippes or Branca or Vicar or Van Horn again or even the slightly over-the-top and Italian influenced Fecchi (very interested in seeing how he handles the "Powerplay" story in a few months). Someone who can really bring out the subtle nuances and expressions needed for Barks' work. Overall I can't really decide if the artwork itself hurt the story for me, or if it was the layouts of the action depicted in the panels. For a slower paced story such as "Nowhere", I kind of feel like it needed livelier and better layed out artwork to really keep it moving and flowing properly - an impression I just didn't get here.
I don't know. I was mildly disappointed by it given my glowing impression of some of the rest of Barks' post-retirement contributions in others equally capable hands. "Nowhere" just felt flat to me.
What did you all think of the story and the artwork for this?
Pages:
1
2
Author
Topic: Somewhere in Nowhere
(16 messages)
WB
Somewhere in Nowhere
Message 1 -
2008-04-03 at 17:47:53
Roger North
Somewhere in Nowhere
Message 2 -
2008-04-03 at 18:46:16
I actually liked that story WB. I liked some of Pat Block's other stories in the Gladstone issues of Donald Duck Adventures. My favorite story by him was Too Late For Christmas. It was a really funny story. I even liked how they put Goofy in that story.
Robb_K
Somewhere in Nowhere
Message 3 -
2008-04-03 at 19:01:45
I can't even remember the plot, of "Somewhere In Nowhere", because I didn't get into the story very much, due to its plodding along, and not very tight plot, and not-very-good perspective and backgrounds. The artwork just doesn't give me the feeling that I'm there in that place (as Barks' does), and the artwork just didn't portray the emotions strongly enough to get me interested. I thought that the plot wasn't strong enough, and it was a bit silly. Not sure the motivations were all reasonable.
WB
Somewhere in Nowhere
Message 4 -
2008-04-08 at 00:36:09
Quote from user: Roger NorthI actually liked that story WB. I liked some of Pat Block's other stories in the Gladstone issues of Donald Duck Adventures. My favorite story by him was Too Late For Christmas. It was a really funny story. I even liked how they put Goofy in that story.
Too Late For Christmas is actually a very good story. Leagues better than its followup whose niggles I mentioned above. TLFC one of the ones I mentioned in my post above as what I consider to be part of Patrick Block's better work. The use of Goofy in the story actually made me smile when I first read it halfway because it was something of an unexpected surprise, and to be honest, also because it made me a little bit nostalgic. I don't object to it because I'm the type who supports a unified universe of mice and ducks.
HOWEVER
Quote from user: Robb_KI can't even remember the plot, of "Somewhere In Nowhere", because I didn't get into the story very much, due to its plodding along, and not very tight plot, and not-very-good perspective and backgrounds. The artwork just doesn't give me the feeling that I'm there in that place (as Barks' does), and the artwork just did portray the emotions strongly enough to get me interested. I thought that the plot wasn't strong enough, and it was a bit silly. Not sure the motivations were all reasonable.
A. The Plot - Rob is right. This just wasn't a strong story. Compared to Horsing Around With History which was masterfully done in every way, I couldn't get the impression that Carl was as fully immersed in this one as previous post retirement adventures. It wasn't flimsy, but it wasn't his best work I think. I'm being a bit broad in my assesment so pardon me if it seems as such, but with Egmont's insistence that Carl Barks do and "just one more" (Hang Gliders Be Hanged), and "just one more" (Go Slowly Sands of Time), and "just one more" (Horsing Around With History), and "just one more" (Somewhere in Nowhere) - I kind of got the feeling from the plot of the story that the final "one more" felt more like "really trying to find "something somewhere out of not much left"
In that sense you kind of have to wonder if the title of the story is more subtle irony and a slightly sly dig at the story itself by Barks. The plot itself certainly seems to lend to this, but perhaps (like Geoffrey Blum's many assesments of Carl's work) maybe I am looking at things a bit too deeply. :)
B) The Artwork - speaking as an artist, first of all I AM NOT trying to step on Mr. Block's toes. I respect any artist who can put the pen to paper and craft out work. BUT. The art here was just not very good. The problem as I see it, comes from two outlets A) the layouts are terrible, B) as a result of this, the perspectives are slightly wonky and C) Pat Block does not have a style of his own at all. A and C have ALWAYS been my biggest niggles about his work.
Since Mystery at Widows Gap, Pat Block has proven he is a masterful renderer...with very little mastery at the layout of the page. =| His panels are often cramped or lack that certain something that makes everything look "in-sync" with what the script is trying to portray. That is not to say he is flat out terrible, but its not very good either. It's very weird because I kind of see him as the polar opposite of Paul Murry. Murry had no school based art training really - this normally wouldn't matter because, by his own admission, neither did Don Rosa - but what is key is that while Murry's layouts are nice to look at, his rendering of characters are INCREDIBLY stiff - especially as time went on. Pat Block suffers from the opposite of this. And I think the number one reason for this is because he tries WAAAAAAAAAAAAY too hard to imitate Carl Barks on every level.
So what's the problem with that?
Style.
Daan Jippes, William Van Horn, Daniel Branca, Victor Rios, and Don Rosa are all self styled Barks imitators. But each one has thier own VERY distinct style. You'll never confuse William Van Horn for Don Rosa just like you'll never confuse Victor Rios for Daniel Branca. (You might confuse Daan Jippes for Freddy Milton though, but I digress! :D) If you were to sit the artwork of the "Big Five" right next to each other - and then place Carl Barks's various art styles to the side of them - you will always be able tell the difference between each artist and what era of Barks they seem to channel from depending on their own personal periods of artwork. That much can't really be said for Pat Block however as he is one of the few artists who tries way too hard to OVER-IMITATE Barks. He seems to have Carl Barks' rendering style with none of his craftsmanship. And therin lies the problem, for without that craftsmanship he could never truly reach the likes of the others before him. It's OK, sometimes its good, but its not quite great.
Emotions are another thing that Rob brought up. In "Somewhere" Donald had about 4 emotions. Shocked, happy, angry, and sad - and that was about it. There was nothing in Donald's face to really support the things being said in the script that we hadn't already seen in the first couple of pages or so and that's a shame. That's why I said to go back and look at William Van Horn's rendering of the ducks on Horsing Around, then compare it with Pat Block's rendering of the ducks on Somewhere. There's a world of difference in those two artists and I ain't just talkin' stylistic differences.
Eh. I dunno. I just couldn't get into it.
Too Late For Christmas is actually a very good story. Leagues better than its followup whose niggles I mentioned above. TLFC one of the ones I mentioned in my post above as what I consider to be part of Patrick Block's better work. The use of Goofy in the story actually made me smile when I first read it halfway because it was something of an unexpected surprise, and to be honest, also because it made me a little bit nostalgic. I don't object to it because I'm the type who supports a unified universe of mice and ducks.
HOWEVER
Quote from user: Robb_KI can't even remember the plot, of "Somewhere In Nowhere", because I didn't get into the story very much, due to its plodding along, and not very tight plot, and not-very-good perspective and backgrounds. The artwork just doesn't give me the feeling that I'm there in that place (as Barks' does), and the artwork just did portray the emotions strongly enough to get me interested. I thought that the plot wasn't strong enough, and it was a bit silly. Not sure the motivations were all reasonable.
A. The Plot - Rob is right. This just wasn't a strong story. Compared to Horsing Around With History which was masterfully done in every way, I couldn't get the impression that Carl was as fully immersed in this one as previous post retirement adventures. It wasn't flimsy, but it wasn't his best work I think. I'm being a bit broad in my assesment so pardon me if it seems as such, but with Egmont's insistence that Carl Barks do and "just one more" (Hang Gliders Be Hanged), and "just one more" (Go Slowly Sands of Time), and "just one more" (Horsing Around With History), and "just one more" (Somewhere in Nowhere) - I kind of got the feeling from the plot of the story that the final "one more" felt more like "really trying to find "something somewhere out of not much left"
In that sense you kind of have to wonder if the title of the story is more subtle irony and a slightly sly dig at the story itself by Barks. The plot itself certainly seems to lend to this, but perhaps (like Geoffrey Blum's many assesments of Carl's work) maybe I am looking at things a bit too deeply. :)
B) The Artwork - speaking as an artist, first of all I AM NOT trying to step on Mr. Block's toes. I respect any artist who can put the pen to paper and craft out work. BUT. The art here was just not very good. The problem as I see it, comes from two outlets A) the layouts are terrible, B) as a result of this, the perspectives are slightly wonky and C) Pat Block does not have a style of his own at all. A and C have ALWAYS been my biggest niggles about his work.
Since Mystery at Widows Gap, Pat Block has proven he is a masterful renderer...with very little mastery at the layout of the page. =| His panels are often cramped or lack that certain something that makes everything look "in-sync" with what the script is trying to portray. That is not to say he is flat out terrible, but its not very good either. It's very weird because I kind of see him as the polar opposite of Paul Murry. Murry had no school based art training really - this normally wouldn't matter because, by his own admission, neither did Don Rosa - but what is key is that while Murry's layouts are nice to look at, his rendering of characters are INCREDIBLY stiff - especially as time went on. Pat Block suffers from the opposite of this. And I think the number one reason for this is because he tries WAAAAAAAAAAAAY too hard to imitate Carl Barks on every level.
So what's the problem with that?
Style.
Daan Jippes, William Van Horn, Daniel Branca, Victor Rios, and Don Rosa are all self styled Barks imitators. But each one has thier own VERY distinct style. You'll never confuse William Van Horn for Don Rosa just like you'll never confuse Victor Rios for Daniel Branca. (You might confuse Daan Jippes for Freddy Milton though, but I digress! :D) If you were to sit the artwork of the "Big Five" right next to each other - and then place Carl Barks's various art styles to the side of them - you will always be able tell the difference between each artist and what era of Barks they seem to channel from depending on their own personal periods of artwork. That much can't really be said for Pat Block however as he is one of the few artists who tries way too hard to OVER-IMITATE Barks. He seems to have Carl Barks' rendering style with none of his craftsmanship. And therin lies the problem, for without that craftsmanship he could never truly reach the likes of the others before him. It's OK, sometimes its good, but its not quite great.
Emotions are another thing that Rob brought up. In "Somewhere" Donald had about 4 emotions. Shocked, happy, angry, and sad - and that was about it. There was nothing in Donald's face to really support the things being said in the script that we hadn't already seen in the first couple of pages or so and that's a shame. That's why I said to go back and look at William Van Horn's rendering of the ducks on Horsing Around, then compare it with Pat Block's rendering of the ducks on Somewhere. There's a world of difference in those two artists and I ain't just talkin' stylistic differences.
Eh. I dunno. I just couldn't get into it.
Cacou
Somewhere in Nowhere
Message 5 -
2008-04-08 at 07:35:17
Style:
In the early days (early 1980s), I think you could confuse Branca and Vicar... but after a few years they had much more different art styles, imo.
In the early days (early 1980s), I think you could confuse Branca and Vicar... but after a few years they had much more different art styles, imo.
Robb_K
Somewhere in Nowhere
Message 6 -
2008-04-08 at 07:44:49
Quote from user: cacouStyle:
In the early days (early 1980s), I think you could confuse Branca and Vicar... but after a few years they had much more different art styles, imo.
I don't think Branca's early 1980s work could be confused with Vicar's. They were very different styles, even then. Vicar's "style" became very differentiated into severl styles in the late 1980s and the 1990s, as he used several different inkers. Branca's style evolved (and became more wild and distorted (through the 1990s). Branca's style could be confused more with Santiago Scalabroni/Ceballos,-especially in magazine cover drawings, but also in some US & DD stories, than Vicar's work, in my opinion. Vicar had a very unique "heavy line" and crowded panels, and over detailed backgrounds. His lines for characters were significantly stiffer than Branca's.
In the early days (early 1980s), I think you could confuse Branca and Vicar... but after a few years they had much more different art styles, imo.
I don't think Branca's early 1980s work could be confused with Vicar's. They were very different styles, even then. Vicar's "style" became very differentiated into severl styles in the late 1980s and the 1990s, as he used several different inkers. Branca's style evolved (and became more wild and distorted (through the 1990s). Branca's style could be confused more with Santiago Scalabroni/Ceballos,-especially in magazine cover drawings, but also in some US & DD stories, than Vicar's work, in my opinion. Vicar had a very unique "heavy line" and crowded panels, and over detailed backgrounds. His lines for characters were significantly stiffer than Branca's.
Lars Jensen
Somewhere in Nowhere
Message 7 -
2008-04-08 at 11:06:02
[quote=WB]I'm being a bit broad in my assesment so pardon me if it seems as such, but with Egmont's insistence that Carl Barks do and "just one more" (Hang Gliders Be Hanged), and "just one more" (Go Slowly Sands of Time), and "just one more" (Horsing Around With History), and "just one more" (Somewhere in Nowhere)
Didn't Barks write "Go Slowly, Sands Of Time" and "Hang Gliders Be Hanged!" at the same time? Anyway, "Somewhere in Nowhere" has absolutely nothing to do with Egmont. It was a Barks Studio production which was then shopped to various publishers. The Italians ended up buying it.
Didn't Barks write "Go Slowly, Sands Of Time" and "Hang Gliders Be Hanged!" at the same time? Anyway, "Somewhere in Nowhere" has absolutely nothing to do with Egmont. It was a Barks Studio production which was then shopped to various publishers. The Italians ended up buying it.
Roger North
Somewhere in Nowhere
Message 8 -
2008-04-08 at 12:35:39
I'm glad you agree with me that a unified Mouse and Duck Universe is a good idea. Too Bad Characters from the Mickey Mouse Universe and the Donald Duck Universe don't appear in the same story together very often unless it's a special circumstance.
Cacou
Somewhere in Nowhere
Message 9 -
2008-04-10 at 08:06:05
I read on the DCML, I think, that Egmont refused to buy "Somewhere in nowhere" because of the financial pretentions of the Carl Barks Studio (or the Grandeys).
Lars Jensen
Somewhere in Nowhere
Message 10 -
2008-04-10 at 11:48:15
Quote from user: cacouI read on the DCML, I think, that Egmont refused to buy "Somewhere in nowhere" because of the financial pretentions of the Carl Barks Studio (or the Grandeys).
Not to be grumpy, but... I've read a lot of stuff on the DCML that was either badly informed or pure guesswork. Do you remember who made that statement?
Not to be grumpy, but... I've read a lot of stuff on the DCML that was either badly informed or pure guesswork. Do you remember who made that statement?
Cacou
Somewhere in Nowhere
Message 11 -
2008-04-11 at 07:25:21
This is from Sigvald, but Harry seemed to confirm it. Here it is:
http://groups.google.com/group/fa.disney-comics/browse_thread/thread/ef5e379671c96573/50a580042a70a3d7?lnk=st&q=dcml+%22somewhere+in+nowhere%22+egmont#50a580042a70a3d7
http://groups.google.com/group/fa.disney-comics/browse_thread/thread/ef5e379671c96573/50a580042a70a3d7?lnk=st&q=dcml+%22somewhere+in+nowhere%22+egmont#50a580042a70a3d7
Lars Jensen
Somewhere in Nowhere
Message 12 -
2008-04-11 at 11:15:20
Quote from user: cacouThis is from Sigvald, but Harry seemed to confirm it. Here it is:
http://groups.google.com/group/fa.disney-comics/browse_thread/thread/ef5e379671c96573/50a580042a70a3d7?lnk=st&q=dcml+%22somewhere+in+nowhere%22+egmont#50a580042a70a3d7
Sigvald writes: "From what I have heard [...]". From whom? Someone who actually worked on the project? For some reason I doubt it.
Harry writes: "That may be the case. And if that is the case [...]". So he clearly doesn't know anything about this and is in no position to confirm anything.
http://groups.google.com/group/fa.disney-comics/browse_thread/thread/ef5e379671c96573/50a580042a70a3d7?lnk=st&q=dcml+%22somewhere+in+nowhere%22+egmont#50a580042a70a3d7
Sigvald writes: "From what I have heard [...]". From whom? Someone who actually worked on the project? For some reason I doubt it.
Harry writes: "That may be the case. And if that is the case [...]". So he clearly doesn't know anything about this and is in no position to confirm anything.
Roger North
Somewhere in Nowhere
Message 13 -
2008-04-11 at 13:38:48
I know the story exists in a special graphic novel because I have that Graphic Novel. It was printed along with North of the Yukon as a bonus story.
Morequack
Somewhere in Nowhere
Message 14 -
2008-04-11 at 14:20:17
Quote from user: Roger NorthI know the story exists in a special graphic novel because I have that Graphic Novel. It was printed along with North of the Yukon as a bonus story.
Yes, it was printed in the U.S.A. by Gemstone in 2005. But I think they're talking about the story being picked up and published by Egmont, the Scandinavian publisher.
Yes, it was printed in the U.S.A. by Gemstone in 2005. But I think they're talking about the story being picked up and published by Egmont, the Scandinavian publisher.
Cacou
Somewhere in Nowhere
Message 15 -
2008-04-11 at 15:05:39
Harry wrote:
Quote:> I thought that Egmont usually pay a set amount of
> $ per page
> regardless of the complexity of the art and regardless of who
> has drawn the art.
That may be the case. And if that is the case, it explains why the demand price for "Somewhere in Nowhere" was too high for Egmont.
The sentence "that may be the case" refers to something else, namely that Egmont pays a fixed amount per page of art regardless of the complexity of the art. You can read the second sentence as "if Egmont found the story too expensive, it might be because of the reason you suggested". But I would be more eager to read it as an interrogation on why Egmont found the price too high, suggesting Egmont did refuse the story because it was too expensive.
That said, I really don't care much about whether it's true or not... I assume that the Grandeys proposed the story to different publishers until one accepted (Disney Italia).
Quote:> I thought that Egmont usually pay a set amount of
> $ per page
> regardless of the complexity of the art and regardless of who
> has drawn the art.
That may be the case. And if that is the case, it explains why the demand price for "Somewhere in Nowhere" was too high for Egmont.
The sentence "that may be the case" refers to something else, namely that Egmont pays a fixed amount per page of art regardless of the complexity of the art. You can read the second sentence as "if Egmont found the story too expensive, it might be because of the reason you suggested". But I would be more eager to read it as an interrogation on why Egmont found the price too high, suggesting Egmont did refuse the story because it was too expensive.
That said, I really don't care much about whether it's true or not... I assume that the Grandeys proposed the story to different publishers until one accepted (Disney Italia).
Pages:
1
2