Harry wrote:I don't agree with you about Heymans. He changed the staging of some panels, and made the story look like a Heymans story.
I have the impression that Mau Heymans can't draw trees and nature. His version of 'Music Hath Charms' looks like taking place in a park instead of in the woods. Just compare that with Jippes.
http://coa.inducks.org/coa/c1/story.php/0/H+92020Harry wrote:Robb_K wrote:And yet Strobl not only failed to stay anywhere near Barks' lines, but he also even RESTAGED panels!!!
It is the job of an artist to improve on the staging of a script, when he thinks it's necessary. This happens all the time.
But this is Barks. Daan Jippes and Mau Heymans are incapable of improving on Barks, as they both have shown. Also Jippes has restaged a panel:
http://coa.inducks.org/story.php/0/H+98254The first panel is an indoors scene in Barks's script. By changing it to an outdoors scene, Jippes's outdoors panel is an odd contrast to all the smoke and pollution in the next panels.
Barks's staging isn't only changed, but simply destroyed.
There are many apprentices who want to improve on their master, without having a clue. Few people seem to realize how much experience Barks had in staging scenes and timing, having worked at the Disney studio.
Barks is a professional comic book artist in the sense that he is skilled and knows what he's doing, both in writing and drawing.
Mau Heymans obviously uses tricks and recurring standard expressions in drawings. The more Mau draws the more obvious it gets that he can't draw. And Daan Jippes's 'Havank'-story has an awful bad timing, if any timing at all. It just goes on and on. And it looks like Jippes has drank too much coffee, as some panels are ridiculously busy.
Some artists seem to fall in love with their own ignorance, trying ways they should have practiced first. I've understood that Mau Heymans looks at himself as a great writer...
When I saw scripts of Mau in 2004, they first looked great to me. But after a while, especially after McDuck-discussions about scripting in 2005, I discovered that they're mostly terrible. There are scenes and chunks that look very interesting and Barks-like, but they look added together. Mau first draws panels and then decides what to keep in. Mostly his stories begin good, but fall flat around the 3rd page.
These people should think at least a hundred times before restaging any Barks.
And with 'Havank' I think Jippes sacrileged the original writers work. Havank is the name of the original author. It would be like drawing Barks stories by replacing Uncle Scrooge for Carl Barks himself.
Jippes isn't a copy-cat here, Jippes takes over someone else's work as if he's the creator himself. Turning the originla creator into a silly old man on sandals. I still can't believe that "my" Jippes got into such artistic crimes.
With Mau Heymans there's a funny example of a (2003?) story about Daisy making a Christmas dinner, without any dinner shown. There are some kettles and pots shown throughout the story, but you never get to see a real dinner. Mau asked me to judge this story after it was published, and I slammed the story down in a long email. Which apparently was a reason for Mau to get interested in me proofreading scripts. But as he kept playing the master and I kept playing the fan, this was a brief collaboration.
I helped improving three Mau stories, most notably a story about a violin player. This was terribly bad in script, just using a Barks idea of 'The Master Wrecker' (an insect on paper that changes what's written on the paper) and then a runaway ending... I suggested Mau to go further on the unfinished symphony mentioned on page 1, and provided him an ending about an expert being enthousiastic about Donald's finishing of the piece. I never got any credits for my work for Mau. As if he was Disney himself. Which makes me wonder how much he has used from others helping him out.
The more I get to know about these so-called Barks heirs, the more I realize that Carl Barks is dead nowadays.