Keskustelujen arkisto

The only problem I see with this question is how incredibly and stiflingly broad it is.

What constitutes what makes a Disney story "Disney"? Is it just having Disney characters? Is it the way its written? Is it the way its approached? Is it a certain style -- because every single one of those questions are subjective.

A Little Mermaid story written by Peter David is wildly different from a Donald Duck/Uncle Scrooge story written by Carl Barks is wildly different from a Darkwing Duck story written by Aaron Sparrow is wildly different than a Roger Rabbit story written by....SKIPPING AHEAD!...is wildly different that a Mickey Mouse story writen by Casty or even Floyd Gottfredson -- but at the end of the day they are undeniably ALL Disney stories...except maybe Roger Rabbit? That's ones complicated...

Anyway, it can't be just "writing like Barks or Gottfredson" because there's way more creators out there than just those even if most agree that they set the gold standards for their specific characters. I'd approach the question more along the lines of the character itself.

For example -- there was a Donald Duck story that only ever ran in America done in the 90's by Tom Yakutis and Bill Wright and called "Asleep on the Deep" that practically reads like a cartoon short. http://coa.inducks.org/story.php?c=KD+5390

It's a deliriously oddball thing to be sure -- the writing & art style are VERY different from what's considered "the norm" for Donald. But then again what is the norm? Dutch stories VS Italian stories VS classic American stories VS French stories VS Brazilian stories (IMO the most bewildering of the lot at times) all approach Donald with an incredible amount of difference but none are necessarily considered "wrong" -- especially if you were to ask someone of that specific nationality that's used to seeing Donald depicted that way.

Personally I like a variance of takes. Do certain stories seem WAY more off kilter than most? Yeah -- thats why I noted "Asleep on the Deep." It's odd even by odd standards. But there are classic 40's and 50's stuff that read that way in the same vein of their respective periods. I saw one recently that I cant recall by an unknown artist about Donald repaving his front walk that read like some sort of weird Looney Tunes/Donald hybrid gone terribly wrong.

But I think that saying somethings not too Disney-ish without setting the parameters of what that exactly means leaves the interpretation open to practically anything. :)

_____

As far as Double Duck goes -- its not much different than TNT in its setup -- Donald takes on a job thats out of the norm and he has to keep what he does secret (although I think TNT -- and probably Duck Avenger given its longevity, I've not read those -- are by-and-large **MUCH** more enjoyable). DD takes itself a little bit more seriously than the previous but my personal opinion is that, just like Wizards of Mickey and Ultraheroes were badly mishandled by Boom, I think DD was also badly mishandled and not adapted properly to how American audiences are used to seeing Donald. Especially since they were done so in lieu of the characters actually being themselves.

Yes Donald is himself in DD (sort of), but I could go on and on about why DD could have succeeded like TNT if it had been done right and why the UH disaster in particular should never have seen the light of day until AT LEAST ppl were semi-familiar with any of those characters. WoM in particular is a BIG success in most other places but here it flopped because of a myriad of reasons outside its control. I wish we could revisit it and DD proper and give them the treatment they deserve so they wont be seen with such scorn, but that is neither here nor there. Maybe someday if the landscape changes and the venues are broader enough to allow it to be so (and no that's not any sort of hint for whats coming at IDW, *REALLY* its not. I'm just rambling and speaking freely).

Most people here would probably be surprised to note that I see more people (specifically American audiences) outside normal Disney Comics circles request an english version PKNA than practically anything else, yet we've barely touched anything classic Duck Avenger to even set up the character as well as showing how it works in the classic continuity. PKNA is a completely alternate continuity anyway as I recall but, like the classic Duck Avenger stuff, I don't know too much about it.

Just goes to show that everybody likes something no matter how non-Disneyish it may seem to some others.

The Crisis on Infinite Darkwings.
If you needed an excuse to read the series and purchase the Omnibus, make this story arc the excuse.

So I was right? Lake Eerie was restored to pristine condition? I feel vindicated.....as long as nobody brings up some of the wrong statements which I've made elsewhere. Volume 1 of Set VI of Another Rainbow's Carl Barks Library includes Barks' original pencil layouts for the 18 Junior Woodchucks comics which he scripted. Twelve of those contained a single story and each of the remaining six included two stories. For two stories, Barks' artwork could not be located so the Carl Barks Library includes the original published versions, one by Tony Strobl and one by Kay Wright. Barks' original ending for the Lake Eerie story showed a dragon dying because rainwater diluted the poisons in the lake. The dragon had gotten used to the impurities and "couldn't take" the small amount of fresh water. At the editors' request, Barks drew an alternate ending where, inexplicably, the lake is clean again, presumably because the dragon---who still died---had eaten all the toxins. It is that alternate ending which appeared in the story drawn by Kay Wright in Huey Dewey & Louie Junior Woodchucks #17. Both of Barks' endings appear on page 238 of the Carl Barks Library volume. In a letter written to Michael Barrier in 1972, Barks groused, "The office butchered my ending and it all comes out sweet as raindrops on rose petals."