Keskustelujen arkisto

Quote from user: rodneyMy views of a "universe" coincide with an artist/writer's views on the characters. To Barks, these details did not matter. He had no reason to believe that readers would notice or care. In his "universe" each story is self contained.

Don, writing for a different audience, was able to put a different spin on stories. That is his "universe".
At the end of the day, I find it kind of silly to argue what "did" or "did not" happen while discussing stories about talking ducks. Of course, none of it happened.
A make-believe character, but one with a street address, a long genealogy and a tangible past, represents a far more compelling and effective subject. He is more real and relatable, and in the hands of a master story-teller like Don Rosa makes for a far more interesting story??an adult story. Whether a Hobbit with furry feet and little worldly ambition who hates adventure, or an enterprising duck with a walking cane and a Money-bin-full of reasons to love adventure, literature shows us that a believable cast of characters with complex lives playing upon a convincing stage are far more interesting and successful at captivating their audience.

So, with a wave of the hand one gestures to dispel years of a talented man's labor and proclaim: what's the use of 'arguing what did or did not happen?' Or when this man's work painstakingly endeavors to build a solid footing and a believable timeline, one declares??with considerably less effort??how 'silly it is, after all, to take talking ducks seriously.' Well, one can go right ahead; it's a fast and free-for-all internet.

Now, me, once I got past the idea that ducks can wear white gloves and keep them perpetually clean, the rest came more easily. The gullible audience that I am, I have become convinced that in a fantastical universe in which there is a plausible explanation for things to be as they are, this is synonymous with a believable continuum??a logical time and place in which our heroes can strut their tailfeathers for us. And to me there is nothing more exciting than an amazing *tale* that "could have happened" after all.

Hmm I never thought of it that way before but Don Rosa wrote a lot of sequels to Carl Barks stories so technically they are in the same universe.

What is technically the "canonical" Duck universe is whichever one the Walt Disney Co. deems to be canon, as they own the characters. (And I have to wonder if Scrooge's animated romps trump all comics in that regard, as they were produced by the studio and not by a licensee...?)
Barks and Rosa were both talented creators who had to give their toys back at the end of the day. If Disney wanted to toss all of that aside in favor of something new tomorrow -- they could do it. (And they sort of did with Ducktales.)
EDIT: Maybe I should elaborate. What I'm asking is, has the Walt Disney Co. ever officially acknowledged the Barks/Rosa universe as one universe that's the *definitive* version of Scrooge as far as they're concerned? Or would the DuckTales episode "Once Upon a Dime" be considered the canonical origin of Scrooge in their eyes, as it was produced by Disney themselves...?

No Matter What Artist drew the ducks it's the same universe. It is just potrayed differently by the different artists.

Thank you Gyro. You said exactly what I've been trying to say.

The term "universe" is simply a word referring to a place and a time in history in which the ducks live. To me a "universe" is a positive thing--it adds plausibility and merit to a story that acknowledges that the ducks live and quack not in a disjointed void where anything goes, but in the real world where real life events and real places have to be dealt with. It makes for more challenging story-telling but more important and rewarding ones. And I for one am appreciative of artists who respect their "universe."

I did not want to open a new topic for this one, so I used this older topic about Rosa. I just found an older topic ( http://www.comicforum.de/showthread.php?t=94535 ) on the German Comicforum about a piece of an interview with Jippes. Daan Jippes allegedly said:
"Just to let you know! And if there are any individuals among the Jippes fans who secretly like Rosa, they're now officially KICKED OUT of the club. Orders from the boss. You (yes YOU there) are still lucky, JippesWorld's security forces would long have you had with your backs against the wall and... Oh well." (It is translation. The original quote: "Dat jullie dat maar weten! En mochten er individuen onder de Jippes-fans zijn die heimelijk ook Rosa wel zien zitten, zijn ze bij deze GEROYEERD uit de club. Orders van de baas. Hebben jullie (ja, JULLIE daar) nog geluk; de security-forces van JippesWorld had jullie allang met de ruggen tegen de muur?¦ nou ja.? )
The complete interview is not online anymore at least not on the website given as source in the Comicforum topic. Basically the topic opener (who is an old time trustworthy member) wrote that he found the interview in dutch and translated with Google translator, so I am pretty sure it is not fake. If it is really real, I am shocked. (Of course the quote is out of context, so we can not know how serious Jippes was.) Don Rosa never criticized any other Duck-artist openly.
What do you think?

Quote from user: CoolwaterAs far as I can grasp from my limited understanding of Dutch (an understanding that is only based on the close relationship to German), Jippes criticises Rosa's handling of the Barks universe (making it "hermetically fixed", giving it chronology), but also his drawing style (something like drawing perspectives "with the yard stick", "no flair", "the opposite of economy", "graphically clumsy", "a dilettant for dilettants").--One of the Dutch here can certainly give the whole text properly in English.
Exactly what I've always thought, too! Thank you, Mr. Jippes!

Quote from user: BenceDon Rosa never criticized any other Duck-artist openly.
He pretty well did. When he said that he'd never draw Mickey Mouse because it was boring and uninteresting, only drawing circles. By saying this, he disparaged the lifework of great artists and colleagues (of his) like Gottfredson, Scarpa, Massimo de Vita and twenty others.