Quote from user: TheRazorI'm curious, has there ever been nude scenes for dogface characters such as the beagle boys, Pete etc?
The relevant stuff is not presented there in full scene visually, but in Don Rosa's Uncle Scrooge anniversary story A Little Something Special, one Beagle Boy got the guise of Gladstone Gander through one of Magica's spells, including the poultry-obligatory pants-no-thanks casual look. He suddenly turns back to his real gestalt without changing his clothing, that all in front of Miss Quackfaster who immediately screams when seeing him and who then faints.
In his comment on that story in the "Hall of Fame", Rosa pointed out explicitely that it has its good reason that one sees Miss Quackfaster looking downward to the Beagle Boy when screaming up.
Author
Topic: Donald Duck...full frontal.
(491 messages)
Coolwater
Donald Duck...full frontal.
Message 136 -
2009-12-17 at 00:59:42
Lars Jensen
Donald Duck...full frontal.
Message 137 -
2009-12-17 at 11:02:10
Quote from user: CoolwaterQuote from user: TheRazorI'm curious, has there ever been nude scenes for dogface characters such as the beagle boys, Pete etc?
The relevant stuff is not presented there in full scene visually, but in Don Rosa's Uncle Scrooge anniversary story A Little Something Special, one Beagle Boy got the guise of Gladstone Gander through one of Magica's spells, including the poultry-obligatory pants-no-thanks casual look. He suddenly turns back to his real gestalt without changing his clothing, that all in front of Miss Quackfaster who immediately screams when seeing him and who then faints.
In his comment on that story in the "Hall of Fame", Rosa pointed out explicitely that it has its good reason that one sees Miss Quackfaster looking downward to the Beagle Boy when screaming up.
Why are you people so obsessed by nudity in children's literature? And why would Don Rosa be so interested in sneaking penises into such literature?
Maybe it's just me who's old-fashioned, but I really have a hard time understanding these things.
The relevant stuff is not presented there in full scene visually, but in Don Rosa's Uncle Scrooge anniversary story A Little Something Special, one Beagle Boy got the guise of Gladstone Gander through one of Magica's spells, including the poultry-obligatory pants-no-thanks casual look. He suddenly turns back to his real gestalt without changing his clothing, that all in front of Miss Quackfaster who immediately screams when seeing him and who then faints.
In his comment on that story in the "Hall of Fame", Rosa pointed out explicitely that it has its good reason that one sees Miss Quackfaster looking downward to the Beagle Boy when screaming up.
Why are you people so obsessed by nudity in children's literature? And why would Don Rosa be so interested in sneaking penises into such literature?
Maybe it's just me who's old-fashioned, but I really have a hard time understanding these things.
Roger North
Donald Duck...full frontal.
Message 138 -
2009-12-17 at 12:33:54
I have that Lil Bad Wolf story in Walt Disney's Comics and Stories #624. I also have A Little Something Special in The Adventurous Uncle Scrooge McDuck #2 and Walt Disney Treasures #2 but I didn't see any naked Beagle Boys in that story. They must have edited that part out in the American editions of that story.
Nefarious
Donald Duck...full frontal.
Message 139 -
2009-12-17 at 17:49:24
Quote from user: Roger NorthI have that Lil Bad Wolf story in Walt Disney's Comics and Stories #624. I also have A Little Something Special in The Adventurous Uncle Scrooge McDuck #2 and Walt Disney Treasures #2 but I didn't see any naked Beagle Boys in that story. They must have edited that part out in the American editions of that story.
I'd say they most likely did, even back then things got edited more heavily over here in AMerica then most anywhere else..
I'd say they most likely did, even back then things got edited more heavily over here in AMerica then most anywhere else..
Kneon
Donald Duck...full frontal.
Message 140 -
2009-12-17 at 18:45:14
Quote from user: Lars JensenWhy are you people so obsessed by nudity in children's literature? And why would Don Rosa be so interested in sneaking penises into such literature? Maybe it's just me who's old-fashioned, but I really have a hard time understanding these things.
Seconded. This is a strange thread, indeed...
Seconded. This is a strange thread, indeed...
WB
Donald Duck...full frontal.
Message 141 -
2009-12-17 at 19:05:48
Quote from user: KneonQuote from user: Lars JensenWhy are you people so obsessed by nudity in children's literature? And why would Don Rosa be so interested in sneaking penises into such literature? Maybe it's just me who's old-fashioned, but I really have a hard time understanding these things.
Seconded. This is a strange thread, indeed...
Thirded. I've said before that I think this thread is really creepy/borderline gross and really ought to be closed. Why the fascination with naked Disney comics characters? It's kids literature for corns sake. Nobody's trying to be a prude, but take your perversions elsewhere.
There, I said it.
Seconded. This is a strange thread, indeed...
Thirded. I've said before that I think this thread is really creepy/borderline gross and really ought to be closed. Why the fascination with naked Disney comics characters? It's kids literature for corns sake. Nobody's trying to be a prude, but take your perversions elsewhere.
There, I said it.
Coolwater
Donald Duck...full frontal.
Message 142 -
2009-12-17 at 20:58:15
Quote from user: Lars JensenWhy are you people so obsessed by nudity in children's literature?
I guess it is exactly the ostensible asexuality of the Ducks' world that attracts the interest of analysts (and of voyeurs) and that provokes efforts of investigating it on the unshown and unspoken things behind the curtain, things which, however, logically must or should exist there. Unter Brüdern, I don't regard the positivistic collecting of nudity pictures of the story characters as overly thrilling; I find the type of Donaldistic research (as the Institut for Donaldistisk Sexologi presents it in Danish) much more interesting (and maybe one of hundred "nudity" pictures from the comics can be regarded as "sexual", as of sexological interest in any way).
Apropos, just found this picture on that Danish Donaldistic site (from the German Der Donaldist). Hasn't been presented here yet, I think, but it matches perfectly with this thread's subject as well as with the question (the doubt) of its legitimation or sense coming up now ... :P
http://donaldisme.dk/Sexolo20.jpg
With respect to Don Rosa, I seriously have got doubts that he primarily thought of children as readers of his Duck stories ... :P
Quote from user: Roger NorthI didn't see any naked Beagle Boys in that story. They must have edited that part out in the American editions of that story.
No, no, Rosa doesn't show the Beagle Boy buck naked to the reader! He shows, however, Miss Quackfaster seeing him buck naked and fainting, and he clarified that exactly this is what Quackfaster sees and what makes her faint.
Speaking of Don Rosa, he always drew Magica De Spell with an explicit décolleté. I don't think that any other Disney artist does this. I wouldn't be surprised if that is censored in some countries (it would be quite easy to retouch anyway).
I guess it is exactly the ostensible asexuality of the Ducks' world that attracts the interest of analysts (and of voyeurs) and that provokes efforts of investigating it on the unshown and unspoken things behind the curtain, things which, however, logically must or should exist there. Unter Brüdern, I don't regard the positivistic collecting of nudity pictures of the story characters as overly thrilling; I find the type of Donaldistic research (as the Institut for Donaldistisk Sexologi presents it in Danish) much more interesting (and maybe one of hundred "nudity" pictures from the comics can be regarded as "sexual", as of sexological interest in any way).
Apropos, just found this picture on that Danish Donaldistic site (from the German Der Donaldist). Hasn't been presented here yet, I think, but it matches perfectly with this thread's subject as well as with the question (the doubt) of its legitimation or sense coming up now ... :P
http://donaldisme.dk/Sexolo20.jpg
With respect to Don Rosa, I seriously have got doubts that he primarily thought of children as readers of his Duck stories ... :P
Quote from user: Roger NorthI didn't see any naked Beagle Boys in that story. They must have edited that part out in the American editions of that story.
No, no, Rosa doesn't show the Beagle Boy buck naked to the reader! He shows, however, Miss Quackfaster seeing him buck naked and fainting, and he clarified that exactly this is what Quackfaster sees and what makes her faint.
Speaking of Don Rosa, he always drew Magica De Spell with an explicit décolleté. I don't think that any other Disney artist does this. I wouldn't be surprised if that is censored in some countries (it would be quite easy to retouch anyway).
Lars Jensen
Donald Duck...full frontal.
Message 143 -
2009-12-17 at 21:51:08
Quote from user: CoolwaterWith respect to Don Rosa, I seriously have got doubts that he primarily thought of children as readers of his Duck stories ... :P
The stories Don Rosa created for Egmont were intended for Egmont's weekly Disney comic. (Anders And & Co./Donald Duck & Co./Kalle Anka & Co. etc. etc.) The target audience for the weekly is children. Which Don Rosa must have known.
The stories Don Rosa created for Egmont were intended for Egmont's weekly Disney comic. (Anders And & Co./Donald Duck & Co./Kalle Anka & Co. etc. etc.) The target audience for the weekly is children. Which Don Rosa must have known.
Robb_K
Donald Duck...full frontal.
Message 144 -
2009-12-17 at 22:10:07
Quote from user: CoolwaterQuote from user: Lars JensenWhy are you people so obsessed by nudity in children's literature?
I guess it is exactly the ostensible asexuality of the Ducks' world that attracts the interest of analysts (and of voyeurs) and that provokes efforts of investigating it on the unshown and unspoken things behind the curtain, things which, however, logically must or should exist there. Unter Brüdern, I don't regard the positivistic collecting of nudity pictures of the story characters as overly thrilling; I find the type of Donaldistic research (as the Institut for Donaldistisk Sexologi presents it in Danish) much more interesting (and maybe one of hundred "nudity" pictures from the comics can be regarded as "sexual", as of sexological interest in any way).
Apropos, just found this picture on that Danish Donaldistic site (from the German Der Donaldist). Hasn't been presented here yet, I think, but it matches perfectly with this thread's subject as well as with the question (the doubt) of its legitimation or sense coming up now ... :P
http://donaldisme.dk/Sexolo20.jpg
With respect to Don Rosa, I seriously have got doubts that he primarily thought of children as readers of his Duck stories ... :P
Quote from user: Roger NorthI didn't see any naked Beagle Boys in that story. They must have edited that part out in the American editions of that story.
No, no, Rosa doesn't show the Beagle Boy buck naked to the reader! He shows, however, Miss Quackfaster seeing him buck naked and fainting, and he clarified that exactly this is what Quackfaster sees and what makes her faint.
Speaking of Don Rosa, he always drew Magica De Spell with an explicit décolleté. I don't think that any other Disney artist does this. I wouldn't be surprised if that is censored in some countries (it would be quite easy to retouch anyway).
I suspect that WOULD be censored in Egypt. But based on the short length and simple plots of all the stories I've seen in The Egyptian Disney magazines, I'd guess that Rosa stories don't get printed there in any case.
I guess it is exactly the ostensible asexuality of the Ducks' world that attracts the interest of analysts (and of voyeurs) and that provokes efforts of investigating it on the unshown and unspoken things behind the curtain, things which, however, logically must or should exist there. Unter Brüdern, I don't regard the positivistic collecting of nudity pictures of the story characters as overly thrilling; I find the type of Donaldistic research (as the Institut for Donaldistisk Sexologi presents it in Danish) much more interesting (and maybe one of hundred "nudity" pictures from the comics can be regarded as "sexual", as of sexological interest in any way).
Apropos, just found this picture on that Danish Donaldistic site (from the German Der Donaldist). Hasn't been presented here yet, I think, but it matches perfectly with this thread's subject as well as with the question (the doubt) of its legitimation or sense coming up now ... :P
http://donaldisme.dk/Sexolo20.jpg
With respect to Don Rosa, I seriously have got doubts that he primarily thought of children as readers of his Duck stories ... :P
Quote from user: Roger NorthI didn't see any naked Beagle Boys in that story. They must have edited that part out in the American editions of that story.
No, no, Rosa doesn't show the Beagle Boy buck naked to the reader! He shows, however, Miss Quackfaster seeing him buck naked and fainting, and he clarified that exactly this is what Quackfaster sees and what makes her faint.
Speaking of Don Rosa, he always drew Magica De Spell with an explicit décolleté. I don't think that any other Disney artist does this. I wouldn't be surprised if that is censored in some countries (it would be quite easy to retouch anyway).
I suspect that WOULD be censored in Egypt. But based on the short length and simple plots of all the stories I've seen in The Egyptian Disney magazines, I'd guess that Rosa stories don't get printed there in any case.
Coolwater
Donald Duck...full frontal.
Message 145 -
2009-12-17 at 22:34:59
Quote from user: Lars JensenThe stories Don Rosa created for Egmont were intended for Egmont's weekly Disney comic. (Anders And & Co./Donald Duck & Co./Kalle Anka & Co. etc. etc.) The target audience for the weekly is children. Which Don Rosa must have known.
That is clear. I just mean what, as one could grasp it, the "spirit" of Rosa's stories is or what his, Rosa's, real intention and drive was. Rosa's work, with its plenty allusions, with the much research, and in its "underground" style, resembles somehow more "fanwork" for grown-up Barksists by a grown-up Barksist.
That I mean irrespectively of the question how one valuates it and if one likes Rosa's stuff or not. I also don't like every trait of his work, and with things like "between the legs" he maybe really overdid it. However, I prefer him every time to that sort of real and undoubted "children-appropriately" designed Disney comics of Kay Wrightish kind.
(One must also mention i this respect that the first censorship that Barks Himself experienced was indeed the too-lifelike breast he gave a female duck. I think he said somewhere that he maybe would have pictured sexuality or love, respectively, sometimes at least on a teen-appropriate level if he would have been free to do it.)
The best comics, in my opinion, are such which have adventure and "fun" on a child-appropriate level, but with it enough high-class, depth and sophistication that still grown-ups are fascinated by them. Barks is an example for that, but also, for instance, Asterix, Lucky Luke, Tintin, and, on TV, "The Simpsons".
That is clear. I just mean what, as one could grasp it, the "spirit" of Rosa's stories is or what his, Rosa's, real intention and drive was. Rosa's work, with its plenty allusions, with the much research, and in its "underground" style, resembles somehow more "fanwork" for grown-up Barksists by a grown-up Barksist.
That I mean irrespectively of the question how one valuates it and if one likes Rosa's stuff or not. I also don't like every trait of his work, and with things like "between the legs" he maybe really overdid it. However, I prefer him every time to that sort of real and undoubted "children-appropriately" designed Disney comics of Kay Wrightish kind.
(One must also mention i this respect that the first censorship that Barks Himself experienced was indeed the too-lifelike breast he gave a female duck. I think he said somewhere that he maybe would have pictured sexuality or love, respectively, sometimes at least on a teen-appropriate level if he would have been free to do it.)
The best comics, in my opinion, are such which have adventure and "fun" on a child-appropriate level, but with it enough high-class, depth and sophistication that still grown-ups are fascinated by them. Barks is an example for that, but also, for instance, Asterix, Lucky Luke, Tintin, and, on TV, "The Simpsons".
Kneon
Donald Duck...full frontal.
Message 146 -
2009-12-18 at 04:41:50
Quote from user: CoolwaterThat I mean irrespectively of the question how one valuates it and if one likes Rosa's stuff or not. I also don't like every trait of his work, and with things like "between the legs" he maybe really overdid it.
You're talking about this page, of course. Panel 7. ;)
http://disneycomics.free.fr/Ducks/Rosa/D2005-061/05.jpg
You're talking about this page, of course. Panel 7. ;)
http://disneycomics.free.fr/Ducks/Rosa/D2005-061/05.jpg
Robb_K
Donald Duck...full frontal.
Message 147 -
2009-12-18 at 06:56:01
Quote from user: KneonQuote from user: CoolwaterThat I mean irrespectively of the question how one valuates it and if one likes Rosa's stuff or not. I also don't like every trait of his work, and with things like "between the legs" he maybe really overdid it.
You're talking about this page, of course. Panel 7. ;)
http://disneycomics.free.fr/Ducks/Rosa/D2005-061/05.jpg
I still can't believe Don wrote that and sent it to Egmont. He must have had some neurons misfiring at the time. I can't believe it wasn't edited out of the English printing. It's not funny, in the first place, and it's in bad taste, and has no business being in a child's comic book (despite the fact that it would "go over the heads" of the younger readers.
HA! HA! I never really paid attention to Goldie's comment about "The Big Swede from Malmö". I have no doubt that Don was making an inside joke referring to one of his friends from Copenhagen's Egmont office, who lives in Malmö.
You're talking about this page, of course. Panel 7. ;)
http://disneycomics.free.fr/Ducks/Rosa/D2005-061/05.jpg
I still can't believe Don wrote that and sent it to Egmont. He must have had some neurons misfiring at the time. I can't believe it wasn't edited out of the English printing. It's not funny, in the first place, and it's in bad taste, and has no business being in a child's comic book (despite the fact that it would "go over the heads" of the younger readers.
HA! HA! I never really paid attention to Goldie's comment about "The Big Swede from Malmö". I have no doubt that Don was making an inside joke referring to one of his friends from Copenhagen's Egmont office, who lives in Malmö.
Roger North
Donald Duck...full frontal.
Message 148 -
2009-12-18 at 13:08:45
I remember that scene but he was wearing something to cover his private parts.
Coolwater
Donald Duck...full frontal.
Message 149 -
2009-12-18 at 14:05:52
Quote from user: Roger NorthI remember that scene but he was wearing something to cover his private parts.
Some panels after his re-metamorphosis, the Beagle Boy has bound Gladstone's jacket around the hips. Immediately after it, however, and when Quackfaster faints, he still wears the half-torn jacket on the upper part of the body (which is only shown then).
Quote from user: Robb_KI still can't believe Don wrote that and sent it to Egmont. He must have had some neurons misfiring at the time.
That applies somehow for the whole story, after all. Rosa becomes quite allusive-unambiguous at the end of that story, too ...
Anyway, what I always found disturbing with Rosa's work, and particularly with Lo$ and its additionals, was not in the first place the few indications of and allusions to sexuality, but rather the sentimentality that Rosa puts on fatly. Rosa is really a good storyteller, but when it comes to Goldie, or generally when Scrooge thinks back of his past, sentimentaly floods and spills over, so that it becomes a bit hard to bear at least for my taste. Barks never slid in that way into the realms of oozing sentimentality; whenever the climate shows break-ins of sentimentaly in his stories, it is soon thwarted and choked off and at least doesn't become an irritating dominant element. Must be the famous-notorious "black humour", "dark world-view", "misanthropy", "cynism" of Barks that always preserved him of slipping on the glaze of sentimentality. ;)
Some panels after his re-metamorphosis, the Beagle Boy has bound Gladstone's jacket around the hips. Immediately after it, however, and when Quackfaster faints, he still wears the half-torn jacket on the upper part of the body (which is only shown then).
Quote from user: Robb_KI still can't believe Don wrote that and sent it to Egmont. He must have had some neurons misfiring at the time.
That applies somehow for the whole story, after all. Rosa becomes quite allusive-unambiguous at the end of that story, too ...
Anyway, what I always found disturbing with Rosa's work, and particularly with Lo$ and its additionals, was not in the first place the few indications of and allusions to sexuality, but rather the sentimentality that Rosa puts on fatly. Rosa is really a good storyteller, but when it comes to Goldie, or generally when Scrooge thinks back of his past, sentimentaly floods and spills over, so that it becomes a bit hard to bear at least for my taste. Barks never slid in that way into the realms of oozing sentimentality; whenever the climate shows break-ins of sentimentaly in his stories, it is soon thwarted and choked off and at least doesn't become an irritating dominant element. Must be the famous-notorious "black humour", "dark world-view", "misanthropy", "cynism" of Barks that always preserved him of slipping on the glaze of sentimentality. ;)
Roger North
Donald Duck...full frontal.
Message 150 -
2009-12-18 at 18:49:43
Thanks for clearing that up Coolwater.