So...um. Yeah. Disney Treasures Book

comics, books

Postby WB » Fri Aug 04, 2006 6:14 pm

In the hopeful attempt at derailing threads with 5 mile long pages on nothing, here's something more on topic and focused on what actually matters: DISNEY COMICS. :)

Anybody here managed to pick up Gemstone's Disney Treasures book? And if so, what do you think?
WB
Member
 
Posts: 40
Joined: Mon May 01, 2006 10:29 am

Postby Daniel73 » Fri Aug 04, 2006 6:58 pm

WB wrote:Anybody here managed to pick up Gemstone's Disney Treasures book? And if so, what do you think?

I think the colour pencils are great. It contains 40 of the 75 colour drawings Barks made. For the public celebration of his 96th birthday, in a period of six months.

[Images removed, can be found at Paintings and colour pencils.]

There should be a popular edition. Now the publication is only intended for people with money bins. And we have nothing.

Give Carl Barks back to the people!

Last edited by Sander (2006-08-28 23:31:42)

[*EDIT* boardlinking updated to McDrake - Daniel73]
Last edited by Daniel73 on Sat Feb 10, 2007 1:37 am, edited 1 time in total.
Daniel73
Member
 
Posts: 313
Joined: Fri Jun 02, 2006 4:40 pm
Location: Netherlands

Postby Daniel73 » Fri Aug 04, 2006 7:05 pm

About the celebration of Barks 96th birthday:

- - - - - - - - - -

[Text removed, can be found at Paintings and colour pencils.]

Last edited by Sander (2006-08-28 23:32:09)

[*EDIT* boardlinking updated to McDrake - Daniel73
Last edited by Daniel73 on Sat Feb 10, 2007 1:38 am, edited 1 time in total.
Daniel73
Member
 
Posts: 313
Joined: Fri Jun 02, 2006 4:40 pm
Location: Netherlands

Postby Daniel73 » Fri Aug 04, 2006 8:04 pm

Rereading WB's post:
WB wrote:Anybody here managed to pick up Gemstone's Disney Treasures book? And if so, what do you think?

Gemstone's? I thought you meant 'Barks Treasury'...

Here's Gemstone's Disney Treasures:
Image
http://coa.inducks.org/issue.php/x/us/WDT+++1
publication date: August 2006

Another anniversary. Which innovation do they celebrate?

Cover by Don Rosa. Well, okay, taste differs... this time. :P Mickey's arms and legs look as if they're elastic. Rosa draws a good Mickey head. Better than Duck heads.

Barks's 'Race to the South Seas' is once again the Jippes-version. (According to COA.) I wish that Jippes never would have done that redrawing of already published Barks stories. Now editors don't feel the need to publish the original version.
Jippes is no Barks. In Jippes's version, the art is obviously Jippes. It has an obvious personal touch of his own, on top of Barks. This 'The Official Anniversary Book' could have been an oppurtunity to set history straight again, by showing Barks's drawings.

But there's a surprise for me. Fethry Duck by Al Hubbard! First publication in the U.S.A.

The Retriever (S 64106)
Plot en script: Dick Kinney
Art: Al Hubbard

Image
http://coa.inducks.org/story.php/x/S+64106

I can't remember the story, but the art looks great. I think Al Hubbard is comparable with Ramon Bernado of Comicup, who also has a professional personal touch.
I wonder if Al Hubbard inked the story, or if its made by using the Xerography that was used in animation movies like 'The Sword and the Stone', 'Jungle Book, 'Aristocats', 'Robin 'Hood' and 'The Rescuers'. Al Hubbard's art looks a lot like that style. As if the black lines are in fact pencils.

Xerography gives artists the liberty to keep a "fluidity in their lucidity". I've heard Barks prefered to write letters with pencil, for that reason. Al Hubbard and Ramon Bernado make their art look as if it's still lively pencil work. As I'm never content, and to keep this on-topic, I think Ramon Bernado should have been included in Gemstone's Disney Treasures.
Maybe next anniversay?
Daniel73
Member
 
Posts: 313
Joined: Fri Jun 02, 2006 4:40 pm
Location: Netherlands

Postby Rockerduck » Fri Aug 04, 2006 10:51 pm

Daniel73 wrote:Barks's 'Race to the South Seas' is once again the Jippes-version. (According to COA.) I wish that Jippes never would have done that redrawing of already published Barks stories. Now editors don't feel the need to publish the original version.
Jippes is no Barks. In Jippes's version, the art is obviously Jippes. It has an obvious personal touch of his own, on top of Barks. This 'The Official Anniversary Book' could have been an oppurtunity to set history straight again, by showing Barks's drawings.

According to Dutch chief editor Thom Roep in the book Carl Barks en de mythe van Walt Disney's Donald Duck, this is the only version that exists. The original copies were so damaged, they had to let Jippes re-inkt it, to made it suitable for publication.

Daniel73 wrote:I can't remember the story, but the art looks great. I think Al Hubbard is comparable with Ramon Bernado of Comicup, who also has a professional personal touch.
I wonder if Al Hubbard inked the story, or if its made by using the Xerography that was used in animation movies like 'The Sword and the Stone', 'Jungle Book, 'Aristocats', 'Robin 'Hood' and 'The Rescuers'. Al Hubbard's art looks a lot like that style. As if the black lines are in fact pencils.

Hubbard's art looks sloppy, as f it's not finished. It's very, very ugly, in my opinion. As if it's rushed, as if Hubbard didn't take the time to actually draw the story properly. That's the same reason I don't like those Disney movies when it comes to animation (and the public and critics are on my side, too). It looks incredibly cheap.
Rockerduck
Member
 
Posts: 262
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 6:40 pm

Postby Rockerduck » Fri Aug 04, 2006 10:53 pm

Pardon me, I know this is work from Carl Barks, but... *ugh!* those colour drawings must be the worst things he's ever made. If I didn't know any better, I'd say it's made by some amateur drawer who didn't know what he was doing.
Rockerduck
Member
 
Posts: 262
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 6:40 pm

Postby Rockerduck » Fri Aug 04, 2006 10:57 pm

WB wrote:In the hopeful attempt at derailing threads with 5 mile long pages on nothing, here's something more on topic and focused on what actually matters: DISNEY COMICS. :)

This looks like an attack a Daniel's posts. What do you have against long posts and what is not about Disney comics, according to you?
Rockerduck
Member
 
Posts: 262
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 6:40 pm

Postby WB » Sat Aug 05, 2006 12:36 am

I'm not attacking anybody. Do not jump at me and say that I am please. I just tried to start a light-hearted thread that didnt have anything to do with the myriad of endless posts below it. I have absolutely no desire to attack anyone or wade through umptee-three buhjillion pages of people saying the same things over and over and over and over and over.

To be quite blunt - I really couldn't care less about whether Barks, Morby, Grandey, Rosa, Van Horn, Jippes, Jack, Jill, Joe, John, Betty, Bobby, Susie, Willie, Clara, Josephine, or whomever did what to who about when and why and how its this great grand conspiracy to disney comics that threatens to tear apart the very fabric of time yadda yadda yadda yadda yadda. I came here in hopes to find a place to discuss the books, the characters, the stories, the concepts I grew up with that I both like and dislike about the disney comics that bring me (and others) happiness in an open forum - not the groan worthy politics that drag behind them. Sure, its interesting on first glance but is it necessary to see this **everywhere**? If thats others bag then thats cool. But it's just not mine. And if that makes me seem selfish and mean then oh well. I dont have to post here, and probably won't anymore. To be honest if every thread here winds up looking like the last several in which topics derail into the same things over and over then I'll probably just leave. I like to visit this place and I'd hate to leave BECAUSE it is really so hard to find places to just simply discuss Disney comic stories for English speaking fans, but I know of at least two other areas where this kind of stuff just does not carry on ad nauseum and that was the original appeal of this place to me, so it's really no skin off my back if I do bounce. You know, I told myself I would just ignore this entire subject, so I'm gonna do just that. I refuse to get agitated over something this silly.

Politics suck. I have managed to derail my own topic AND go on the defensive when there was really no need to. I have had a very bad day and sorry for the rant. Fun times and CANDY FOR EVERYONE indeed. =
WB
Member
 
Posts: 40
Joined: Mon May 01, 2006 10:29 am

Postby ramapith » Sat Aug 05, 2006 3:07 am

Daniel73 wrote:Another anniversary. Which innovation do they celebrate?

We're celebrating the 75th anniversary of Disney comics, 1930-2005 (that's right, 2005... the release of this book was postponed a bit for reasons beyond our control). The "innovation" referred to in the title is simply the evolution of storytelling style, characters, etc. over those 75 years. You have to admit Disney comics have changed a lot.
Barks's 'Race to the South Seas' is once again the Jippes-version. (According to COA.)

Um, not quite. I indexed the issue for COA, and notice what I mentioned: "restored from Jippes reink, with much of original Barks art reinstated."
We managed to decolor a large amount of the original Barks character art from both the original Dell comic and a very crisp 1970s French reprint; then we electronically laid it into the panels over the Jippes-drawn backgrounds. The result is still not pure Barks, but has much more of Barks than any other modern edition. Comparing the ducks' faces in particular will immediately let you notice the difference.
But there's a surprise for me. Fethry Duck by Al Hubbard! First publication in the U.S.A.

And we've published other Hubbard-drawn Fethry stories recently, too. Hubbard didn't use Xerography, by the way—I inspected some original art from a Hubbard 1960s story at Disney awhile ago, and it showed the inking to be standard brushwork with real ink.
ramapith
 

Postby Daniel73 » Sat Aug 05, 2006 7:42 am

Rockerduck wrote:This looks like an attack a Daniel's posts. What do you have against long posts and what is not about Disney comics, according to you?

I see it as just criticism. I hope that the other topic can be split up by the maintainer, as it is a heavy example of getting off-topic. The fact that I'm writing long drafts there, only makes it worse. So, WB's comment is correct. Even if it were an attack. :)
Some people rather discuss the comics. Others are interesting in the boring side of comics: production process, backstage matters, interviews, articles, backbiting, etc. Some go for both options, and are then barely able to follow either possibility.

ramapith wrote:
Daniel wrote:Barks's 'Race to the South Seas' is once again the Jippes-version. (According to COA.)

Um, not quite. I indexed the issue for COA, and notice what I mentioned: "restored from Jippes reink, with much of original Barks art reinstated."

I've only looked at the contents index, where I saw Jippes' name being credited. However, the line "restored from Jippes reink, with much of original Barks art reinstated" doesn't add much to that for me, as it's still based on Jippes's version. I remember Jippes telling me at a Dutch convention in autumn 1991, that he (in the 1970s) worked from bad xeroxes on which mostly only the ducks could be seen.
Since then and with internet, clear copies of the original March of Comics can be obtained. So, why keep on working with something that Jippes made in the ancient 1970s?

ramapith wrote:We managed to decolor a large amount of the original Barks character art from both the original Dell comic and a very crisp 1970s French reprint; then we electronically laid it into the panels over the Jippes-drawn backgrounds. The result is still not pure Barks, but has much more of Barks than any other modern edition. Comparing the ducks' faces in particular will immediately let you notice the difference.

Jos Beekman of the Dutch editor told McDuck some similar story about restoring and reformatting an old give-away Wolf story in a recent Donald Duck weekly.
Why do editors make such expensive efforts in faking something that they just could reprint as a facsimile version? Why bother about the original colouring? Just colour-xerox it into the issue. That would have been a cheap solution and a real scoop. People would really have had the original 'Race to the South Seas'. (And 'Darkest Africa', etc. etc.)

In the Netherlands and I believe in other European countries there are facsimile books compiling old years of comics. This way people can now buy complete, scanned reprints of the Dutch weeklies of 1952-1956, and the series seems to be a succes.
As far as I know, the only problem about some stories, is that editors don't like the original colouring. But if it was good then, then why is it so bad now? 'Race to the South Seas' is a unique story that is worth the authentic view.

ramapith wrote:[Gemstone] And we've published other Hubbard-drawn Fethry stories recently, too.

Other Hubbard-drawn Fethry stories in the USA? Why didn't anyone tell me? No wonder I get grumpy, when no one tells me good news. :D

ramapith wrote:Hubbard didn't use Xerography, by the way—I inspected some original art from a Hubbard 1960s story at Disney awhile ago, and it showed the inking to be standard brushwork with real ink.

Interesting. Could Al Hubbard's style be an imitation of the then-modern Xerography? Or is it just coincidence?
Daniel73
Member
 
Posts: 313
Joined: Fri Jun 02, 2006 4:40 pm
Location: Netherlands

Postby Daniel73 » Sat Aug 05, 2006 8:13 am

In 'Disney Treasures' there's also a story titled 'The Brain from N.E.P.H.E.W.', first published in June 1967. According to COA the pencils are by Tony Strobl. I find this surprising as the art looks lively, in contrast to 'King Scrooge the First' (US 71). Was Strobl better at Goofy than with Ducks?
Image
http://coa.inducks.org/story.php/x/W+SG++++7-03
Interesting to see Goofy's wise-guy nephew with the eternal mathematics-hat. I hope there will be more of these characters, like the woman (in The Netherlands: Bella Duck) with a boat that always needs to be repaired and paid by Scrooge.
Other wish is Gemstone using some Toonder Studio stories of Big Bad Wolf and Hiawatha. I find these stories very good, adding a lot of live to them. For example, the Wolf stories had a good ladies club, with one sheephead playing organ. The Hiawatha's showed an indian village with secondary characters like a medicine man who's always wearing a mask, a woman beating up her husband with a tennis racket, so that the man always wears bandage around his head.

And, of course, if only for the record, a story of Madam Mim and Magica living together in a castle. I find these castle-stories a bit zany, maybe just because of them being terribly bad. Especially Magica walks around as if she's recovering from a nervous breakdown. (I would love to reread these stories!)
Daniel73
Member
 
Posts: 313
Joined: Fri Jun 02, 2006 4:40 pm
Location: Netherlands

Postby ramapith » Sat Aug 05, 2006 3:32 pm

Daniel73 wrote:However, the line "restored from Jippes reink, with much of original Barks art reinstated" doesn't add much to that for me, as it's still based on Jippes's version.

Check out the results, please, before deciding you don't like it.
True, a facsimile version might have been more authentic still, but for a number of reasons this was impossible at present. In the future we may attempt such a project.
Other Hubbard-drawn Fethry stories in the USA? Why didn't anyone tell me?

Because I had no idea you'd be interested? Here's a list of Hubbard Fethry stories in Gemstone thus far:

• S 64008 "The Health Nut": WDC&S 638
• S 64029 "It's Music": WDC&S 662
• S 64066 "Pop Goes the Art": MM 276
• S 64106 "The Retriever": WDT 1
• S 65049 "Fall Guy" (the famous Niagara story): VP 3

There will be more coming early next year. And on a related note, we also published a Hubbard duck story without Fethry:

• S 66032 "The Great Egg Hunt": US 352
Could Al Hubbard's style be an imitation of the then-modern Xerography? Or is it just coincidence?

I think it's just a coincidence, honestly...
I hope there will be more of these characters, like [Belle Duck]... Other wish is Gemstone using some Toonder Studio stories of Big Bad Wolf and Hiawatha.

These are presently under consideration—don't rule them out. Hiawatha's medicine man is great.
And, of course, if only for the record, a story of Madam Mim and Magica living together in a castle.

Oh, my badness! The Great Curse at last! >Kak!<
We hadn't really considered using these, but you never know what will happen.
ramapith
 

Postby Rockerduck » Sat Aug 05, 2006 4:01 pm

WB wrote:I'm not attacking anybody. Do not jump at me and say that I am please. I just tried to start a light-hearted thread that didnt have anything to do with the myriad of endless posts below it. I have absolutely no desire to attack anyone or wade through umptee-three buhjillion pages of people saying the same things over and over and over and over and over.

If you don't want to attack anybody, then don't make the suggestion. Your opening post was clearly a reference to Daniel's eloborate posts, and even suggested he wasn't being on-topic.

WB wrote:To be quite blunt - I really couldn't care less about whether Barks, Morby, Grandey, Rosa, Van Horn, Jippes, Jack, Jill, Joe, John, Betty, Bobby, Susie, Willie, Clara, Josephine, or whomever did what to who about when and why and how its this great grand conspiracy to disney comics that threatens to tear apart the very fabric of time yadda yadda yadda yadda yadda.

So you're saying you don't care if a Disney artist is being mistreated, like Barks was y his managers? It's no problem they pushed an old man around, just as long as you can enjoy your comics? That indeeds makes you look selfish and mean, but, as you've said yourself, you don't care.

And that's the problem Daniel and I have tried to point out, I think: people don't care anymore. From one side, you -and others- claim you want to discuss Disney comics, but when it comes to really interesting issues, that are not already discussed a thousand times -like your favorite characters- everybody turns away. With the same mentality you have: 'Oh no, reading! More than one sentence! Bleh!'

In the meantime, everybody has discussed Barks' work a thousand times, but who knows about the information Daniel posted? Nobody! How can any biography be complete without this being investigated? But people aren't interested. As long as *they* can read their comics and discuss *their* favorite characters.

That leads to pretty superficial 'discussions'.

Then I'd rather have a *real* forum, with *real* information.
Rockerduck
Member
 
Posts: 262
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 6:40 pm

Postby WB » Sat Aug 05, 2006 5:21 pm

Rockerduck wrote:If you don't want to attack anybody, then don't make the suggestion. Your opening post was clearly a reference to Daniel's eloborate posts, and even suggested he wasn't being on-topic.

Rockerduck. I like you, but I will not argue with you. I did not make the suggestion. You did. You are the one who said I attacked him when I clearly stated afterwards that that was not my intention. You don't have to believe me if you don't want to. Thats is perfectly fine. You can say whatever you want but you cannot read my mind.

I said "In the hopeful attempt at derailing threads with 5 mile long pages on nothing, here's something more on topic and focused on what actually matters: DISNEY COMICS" which is my opinion. Daniel was doing this, yes but was he the only one? No. Did I specifically mention Daniel's name? No. Did I call out Daniel in any other thread and tell him to shut up and stop it? No. Have I ever said anything bad about Daniel before? No. Do I even really care about this? No. Dude, I dont know Daniel from a hole in the wall. I made a snarky comment (which I fully acknowledge as being snarky) and went on to bring up the subject of a Treasures book.

That.

Is it.

WB wrote:So you're saying you don't care if a Disney artist is being mistreated, like Barks was y his managers? It's no problem they pushed an old man around, just as long as you can enjoy your comics?

Of course I care dude. That #%$ is awful. I've been living with an old man who cant take care of himself for the latter part my life and it GALLS me when anyone tries to take advantage of him. That kind of crap is unnecessary and uncalled for. The only thing that I took umbrage with said topic was seeing it endless mentioned in places where it DOESNT EVEN HAVE TO DO WITH WHAT THE ORIGINAL TOPICS WERE. Yes. It is a problem. Do we need to see this brought up EVERYWHERE, EVERYWHEN, EVERYHOW, EVERYWHICHWAYBUTLOOSE? Is it so much of a pressing issue that topics on toilet paper and honeybees suddenly become linked to conspiracy theories about Carl Barks and gamma radation, OH MY LORD ITS THE END OF THE WORLD! No. It is not! (I'm being facetious here mind you)

When I said "off topic" I meant in threads where it really doesnt have anything to do with anything at hand. I dont care what people discuss in threads here and there if you wanna start your own topics about that, but is it really fair to the people whom were discussing a totally **different** topic to derail and commandeer it with endless tirades on something that **doesnt** have to do with it? Your mileage may vary, but I dont think so. And THAT is why I dont really care about it.

In the meantime, everybody has discussed Barks' work a thousand times, but who knows about the information Daniel posted? Nobody! How can any biography be complete without this being investigated? But people aren't interested. As long as *they* can read their comics and discuss *their* favorite characters.

It *is* interesting, it provides backstory, and it really is sad when you hear about it and discuss it in an open forum - of that there is no doubt. But IMO It *ceases* becoming interesting and providing backstory when that is all there is, there is nothing else, and said glut on said topic trumps everything else that does or does not in the least bit have to do with it. Not once did I ever say "DONT TALK ABOUT THIS AT ALL THIS ISNT IMPORTANT BRING ON MY COMICS YOU SUCK DANIEL RAWR!!!" You assume thats what I'm saying and thus you attack me. There is a difference.

I don't have any beef with anybody because quite frankly, it is a waste of time and and stupid also when everyone could be far doing better things. I only took the time to respond to this to clarify it to YOU. The rest of the extraneous nonsese does not matter...To me anyway, like I said - your mileage may vary and yesterday I was in an extremely pissant mood to begin with which I had already said.

That leads to pretty superficial 'discussions'. Then I'd rather have a *real* forum, with *real* information.

You nailed it.

Anyways - I've said what I wanted to and I'm done. I dont really want to discuss this anymore cause its just silly at this point. I wont be discussing this in response to anything said from this point on. You can continue if you like. I'll respond to ramapith and Daniels other queries instead.
WB
Member
 
Posts: 40
Joined: Mon May 01, 2006 10:29 am

Postby Daniel73 » Sat Aug 05, 2006 6:02 pm

I hope Ramapith's contributions won't get ignored, because he's writing very interesting background information on publications and comics.

Rockerduck wrote:Your opening post was clearly a reference to Daniel's eloborate posts, and even suggested he wasn't being on-topic.

The topic about the Don Rosa interview has gone very off-topic. It raises doubts. Reason why I keep on going there is that I want to ask the maintainer about a solution of splitting it, making it two topics. If I would start a new topic now, then that would become even more a chaos.

I've made a topic to discuss discussions. So if people want to write about the forum, its policy and its participants, they have an on-topic place to go to.

Discussions about discussing
http://bb.mcdrake.nl/engdisney/viewtopic.php?t=39

*EDIT* boardlinking updated to McDrake
Last edited by Daniel73 on Sat Feb 10, 2007 1:39 am, edited 1 time in total.
Daniel73
Member
 
Posts: 313
Joined: Fri Jun 02, 2006 4:40 pm
Location: Netherlands

Next

Return to Disney comics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests

cron