Don Rosa video interview

Santiago Ceballos, William Van Horn, Paul Murry, Don Rosa, etc.

Postby Rockerduck » Sun Aug 06, 2006 4:29 pm

Ole Damgaard wrote:It was a joke, man... lighten up! ;)

I'm just so used to Rosa-fans coming up with the most insane exuses, I thought you were serious. :lol:
Rockerduck
Member
 
Posts: 262
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 6:40 pm

Postby Rockerduck » Sun Aug 06, 2006 4:48 pm

Don Rosa:

... in my own mind I must consider Bolivar "officially... gone" to explain his absence
from every Barks story I grew up with. (Yes, he apparently was used by Barks
in some 1940's stories that I learned of as an adult collector -- perhaps
this Bolivar was lost on a Junior Woodchuck rescue mission, or Donald did
him a mischief while backing 313 out of the garage in 1949?


Johan Franzon:

When did he pass away? […]Might the medal, with a sharp pin attached, have
been the cause of his "death"?


Don Rosa:

Therefore, Snozzie *is* alive in my heart and mind.


So now even Bolivar is DEAD according to Rosa? And his fans happily tag along?! When will this man stop? He's even suggesting Donald ran over him with his 313! That is cruel.

So from the moment Barks stops using a certain character, or when Rosa didn't read a story with a character, he or she is immediatly DEAD?

Sometimes Bolivar is present, sometimes he's not. Why all this talk about death? It's so depressing to read about that when you as a reader want to enjoy Disney comics. Why is Disney allowing this?

Why all this weird reasoning? Why does Rosa have to explain where Bolivar came from? He could've used him in any story he wanted, without explaining why he was absent in his previous stories, because nobody would've cared! When Barks used Bolivar for the first time, did he explain why Bolivar was absent in his previous stories?

Hell no! Because Barks knew this were Disney comics for kids.
Rockerduck
Member
 
Posts: 262
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 6:40 pm

Postby Rockerduck » Sun Aug 06, 2006 4:55 pm

Daniel73 wrote:A 1955 story has a dog that looks like Bolivar. But there the name is Bernie. I've counted three saint bernard dogs named Bolivar, Bornworthy and Bernie. It could be one saint bernard dog having three different names, or two dogs of which one has two different names, but that's a matter of discussion and investigation.

According to Duck-expert Wolfgang J. Fuchs in the German magazine 'Die tollste Geschichten von Donald Duck- Sonderheft' no. 230 (2006), 'Bernie' and 'Bornworthy' are just other names for Bolivar, but it's always the same dog.
Rockerduck
Member
 
Posts: 262
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 6:40 pm

Postby Doctor Witchie Britchie » Mon Aug 07, 2006 2:37 pm

You know, if Barks had followed Rosa's ironclad "rule" about not introducing a new character and pretending the character was not new at all, we would never have had Gladstone, the Beagle Boys, Gyro, or Scrooge himself. William Van Horn has never hestitated to create characters such as Uncle Rumpus and pretend they have existed all along in the Duck universe. Romano Scarpa created a girlfriend for Pete and a would-be-girlfriend for Scrooge without agonizing about "where they'd been" up till now. Only Rosa seems to be so upset at the prospect of "upsetting continunity" that he says thoughtless things like the above comment about Bolivar being "dead." This continuity thing is a large element of the superhero comics that Rosa so much dislikes, so I don't see why he's so devoted to it.
Doctor Witchie Britchie
Member
 
Posts: 193
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 2:51 pm

Postby WB » Mon Aug 07, 2006 3:12 pm

Continuity is nice is *SOME* aspects. But I think the problem with MANY MANY MANY american artists and writers in general (this is not just targetting Rosa alone because I've had many discussing with professional writers and artists on this aspect) is that they find it so crucial to telling a story that they become mired in it. SO MUCH SO that they negate things that could be really good or nice additions to said characters mythos. Take for instance when Gladstone introduced Bridgitta MacBridge to American readers. My immediate question was - what about Glittering Goldie? Now that I've seen Bridgitta a lot more often, I can see just how different she is and what a character like her can bring to the table. She's not a bad addition at all, nor does she negate anything.

Conforming to a rigid stoic set of beliefs on continuity that something doesnt work or "this character was never any good anyway" is somewhat detrimental on things I think. But...I'm being really vague about the sibject anyways, so whatever.

Thats one of the largest problems with Superhero comics today....well, that and other things but thats a wholly different topic.

Now I will agree that yes - there is a certain timeline and/or of flow of things that just kinda need to make sense so you can INDEED have a solid story. You cant just come in and suddenly say "Scrooge didnt make his money by earning it! He got it all on a paper route and inherited the rest!" That destroys years of established continuity that builds upon WHO the character is at its core (note that I didnt say the characters story). Just as I like to think of Life of Scrooge as the true story behind Scrooge's background, does that mean that I also dont think that characters like Cousin Douglas McDuck (Lars Jensen) or Scrooge's half brother Rumpus McFowl (William Van Horn) or Gideon McDuck (Romano Scarpa) are apochryphal due to Rosa not including them and/or ignoring them all together? Absolutely not. I especially love Douglas and Rumpus - my take is that their stories of detail just have not been told. Do they NEED to be told at this time? No. Not really or not at all. But maybe in the distant future someone WOULD like to take those endearing characters and build on them more to expand the mythos for everybody. Thats the GOOD thing about continuity. The BAD thing about continuity is when you get those attitudes like "Well! Don Rosa or Carl Barks didnt use them! Scrooge didnt have a cousin here, so they just plain don't exist!" That mode of thinking deprives us readers of honest to goodness fun characters like Rumpus and Douglas. And currently IMO it is what deprives us of good stories that can be done already long established characters like Ludwig Von Drake, whom many are fans of and grew up with right alongside guys like Scrooge. =

Your mileage may vary, but IMO continuity can be both a very helpful AND a very dangerous thing to get mired in when storytelling. If you don't get the mix just right, it can lead to disaster in storytelling quicker than you think.

IMO Gottfredson's Mickey Mouse strips were probably the best example in the older days of how to do continuity within Disney comics - simple, but not simplistic, with just enough lines sprinkled here and there to not be complicated and stupid superhero style. We dont need to know why Mickey wasn't eating that ice cream cone at 0.2 seconds on the date of July 1, 1972 when he was battling Pegleg Pete. But if you can find a way to make it part of a really good story without crapping on what came before it, then it's nice to know that somebody did bother to mention it for those who do remember. :)
WB
Member
 
Posts: 40
Joined: Mon May 01, 2006 10:29 am

Postby Doctor Witchie Britchie » Mon Aug 07, 2006 4:18 pm

I agree with you, WB--continuity of the sort you describe doesn't hurt the stories at all; in fact, I always enjoy how the Gottfredson stories refer back to previous adventures (and sometimes ones that took place years ago, as when Peg-Leg Pete in IN SEARCH OF JUNGLE TREASURE recognizes Spooks as the gorilla that "robbed [him] of some buried treasure dat was rightfully Mickey's!" back in the TREASURE ISLAND story). The trouble comes in when everything must be set in a rigid timeline of real-life facts and dates; then we get Scrooge "dying" in 1967, and a lot of other nonsense.
Doctor Witchie Britchie
Member
 
Posts: 193
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 2:51 pm

Postby WB » Mon Aug 07, 2006 4:36 pm

Doctor Witchie Britchie wrote:The trouble comes in when everything must be set in a rigid timeline of real-life facts and dates; then we get Scrooge "dying" in 1967, and a lot of other nonsense.

Exactly. Thats what bothers me as well as I find very unnecessary when, in reference to the characters who are CREATED specifically to be timeless, it is more than slightly jarring if you factor in that kids read it. What kid you know that wants to read a story about Donald or Mickey dying?

POIGNANT DEATH - such as the old age deaths of Scrooge's parents - or a shocking villians death, like the death of Pegleg Pete's ancestor Blackbeard in "The Pirate Ghostship" - that I find perfectly accept. These are perfect examples of how death should be handle in Disney comics - A) In Downy and Fergus's case, a sad, humbling death that lets us see a rare character defining moment on how important they are to Scrooge and who he is. B) Blackbeard's death is the most shocking villian death I've seen in a Disney comic (engulfed in a encroaching wave of lava @_@), but we know Blackbeard is also a cruel irredeemable villian who was not killed by anyone else, but was instead done in by his own greed and avarice much like many villians in classic Disney movies.

I am not against death in Disney comics, but a line must be drawn as to who can be considered to die. Sure theres always a case of mortality coming up on these characters - be it through someone established to be as simple as The Beagle Boys or as "ultimate villian" in the sense of the Phantom Blot. Without the threat of conflict and death, there is no conflict. But actually going so far as to put a death date and ultimate finality on the core characters is IMO a no-no. Like I said, I think that theres a line when there comes to such things.

Life of Scrooge remains flexible enough that many things can be added to the mythos without taking them away.

But go any further than that and **super rigid timelines** hurt more often than they help.
WB
Member
 
Posts: 40
Joined: Mon May 01, 2006 10:29 am

Postby Rockerduck » Mon Aug 07, 2006 6:32 pm

WB wrote:Take for instance when Gladstone introduced Bridgitta MacBridge to American readers. My immediate question was - what about Glittering Goldie? Now that I've seen Bridgitta a lot more often, I can see just how different she is and what a character like her can bring to the table. She's not a bad addition at all, nor does she negate anything.

I think Brigitta McBridge is by far the best non-Barks character that was added to the Duck-universe. She brought in so many new story ideas and possibilities! It takes a good creator like Romano Scarpa to come up with such a well-definded new character that actually *adds* something to the already existing bunch of characters.

Scarpa's other creation, Kildare Coot (Grandma Duck's nephew), appears to me as merely a copy of Fethry Duck. He appears to be jst as weird and clumsy as Fethry. Why was he added? I don't know much about Kildare, because he has only appeared in two stories in The Netherlands (and only very recently), but thanks to the German pocketbooks I've found out he's been an addition to the Duck-universe since for many years now. According to Inducks, his first story was first published in 1964, but his second story only 24 years later, in 1988! Does anybody know more about this curious situation?

WB wrote:Now I will agree that yes - there is a certain timeline and/or of flow of things that just kinda need to make sense so you can INDEED have a solid story. You cant just come in and suddenly say "Scrooge didnt make his money by earning it! He got it all on a paper route and inherited the rest!" That destroys years of established continuity that builds upon WHO the character is at its core (note that I didnt say the characters story).

You are right, in my opinion, to a certain extent. I agree this goes for a main character like Scrooge. But what about a character like Rockerduck?

In Don Rosa's version of things, he was a spoilt brat who inherited everything from his father Howard. I say this matches Rockerduck's personality. But there's also another story, Uncle Scrooge's wedding by Massimo de Vita and Elisa Penna, which explains Rockerduck's wealth another way. Rockerduck wasn't as rich at all when he first met Scrooge in the Miljonairs Club (he came in thanks to his connections), but he dared Scrooge into a golf match. Scrooge put in half of his entire fortune, and LOST, therebye leaving Rockerduck a much richer, weakthier man, who owns most of his fortune thus to Scrooge.

Whicg story is true? This was one of the best Italian stories I know, by the way, and one of Brigitta's best performances.

WB wrote:Just as I like to think of Life of Scrooge as the true story behind Scrooge's background, does that mean that I also dont think that characters like Cousin Douglas McDuck (Lars Jensen) or Scrooge's half brother Rumpus McFowl (William Van Horn) or Gideon McDuck (Romano Scarpa) are apochryphal due to Rosa not including them and/or ignoring them all together? Absolutely not. I especially love Douglas and Rumpus

I don't know anything about Gideon, except he's supposed to be Scrooge's half-brother and he runs a newspaper in Duckburg. I can't recall any stories featuring him being publsihed in The Netherlands. The Dutch miss out on a lot of characters, this way. Are stories with Gideon still being made? My guess is, he disappeared from Italian comics, just like Dickie Duck has for many years now (occasionelly making a small cameo appearance). What did Gideon add to the Duck universe?

Although Van Horn's stories featuring Rumpus McFowl are entertaining, I wonder what he actually adds to the world of the Ducks. Sure, he's extremely lazy, dim-witted, and eats a lot. Wait, wasn't that what Gus Goose was designed for? Is Rumpus a copy of Gus? There is a story in which Rumpus finds out he's actually Scrooge's half-brother. Did anybody read that? Because, again, it has not been published in my country.

I've read two stories featuring Douglas McDuck. The first one, and to my knowledge the first to be published in The Netherlands, was in 1999, I think. It appears he's been present for a longer time? The stories featuring him weren't anything special, in my opinion. They were done by Vicar and Branca. The Branca-story also featured Donald's (Barks-)cousin Abner. I wonder what Douglas adds.
Rockerduck
Member
 
Posts: 262
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 6:40 pm

Postby Rockerduck » Mon Aug 07, 2006 7:11 pm

I think discussions about secondary characters should be further held in the NEW TOPIC. I'm sorry for letting this get off-topic. Back to discussing Don Rosa!

*EDIT* boardlinking updated to McDrake
Last edited by Rockerduck on Sat Feb 10, 2007 2:53 am, edited 1 time in total.
Rockerduck
Member
 
Posts: 262
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 6:40 pm

Postby Oh_so » Tue Aug 08, 2006 10:43 am

Rockerduck wrote:So now even Bolivar is DEAD according to Rosa? And his fans happily tag along?! When will this man stop? He's even suggesting Donald ran over him with his 313! That is cruel.

What a crook! Creators should not make such jokes (even out of stories itself) about animals in comic books. Might scar someone for life!

Same with $crooge dying. Surely editors will call him any day "Don, why dontcha make that 1967 story now, we feel its time to get rid of that old tightwad!".

No, really, duck stories are a serious matter and making jokes in net and unofficial parodies is something to be seriously frowned upon.

Did you know that God kills a kitten everytime comics creator makes fun of those characters?

So, please. think of the kittens.
Oh_so
 

Postby Daniel73 » Wed Aug 23, 2006 5:35 pm

There's an Italian newspaper article from about 1994, in which Barks apparently claims that Donald has no father or mother. And I've seen a short snippet of a 1994 video at Youtube where Barks is interviewed about Duck family relations, how Scrooge is related to Donald:

Carl Barks meets his fans - talks about Donald Duck, Disney
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gPcaKTaPbjg
Youtube-info: Carl Barks talks about Donald Duck. A interview taped in Stockholm, Sweden 1994.
Watch more: http://www.duckbusiness.com
Also: http://www.birgerson.net

There are a lot of laughs and I guess the subject of family relations is brought as being ridiculous to seriously dive into.
Barks: "Scrooge is Donald's uncle I guess." (laughs) "He'd better be."

This video snippet could be seen as criticism towards Rosa's view. But contradiction is that there have been more family tree people.
The man on the left, next to Barks, is Bill Grandey. At the end of the 01:06 minutes snippet, he interferes and says something like "[Were you saying that] it's very likely Donald's mother is Scrooge's sister." To which Barks jokingly replies: "[Allright, allright.] That's a good explanation." Followed by laughs from the audience.
(Corrections are welcome. I'm bad in phonetic English.)

I think that this conversation is just joking about freaks getting too much into categorizing comics fantasy. Which is what happens regularly.
Daniel73
Member
 
Posts: 313
Joined: Fri Jun 02, 2006 4:40 pm
Location: Netherlands

Postby Daniel73 » Wed Aug 23, 2006 6:17 pm

Draft transcription of the entire snippet:

interviewer: "We're very curious in Sweden, because to us it isn't enough to have an uncle. We need to know if he's the mother's brother or if he's the father's brother. And there have been great discussions in Sweden for a long time about all the uncles and nephews in Duckburg. How is Scrooge related to Donald?"
Barks: "Well, Scrooge is Donald's uncle I guess." (laughs) "[...] He'd better be."
interviewer: "Would you think that Donald is the son of Scrooge's sister or of Scrooge's brother?"
Barks: "Well.. Now I don't know." (laughs) "I don't know. But that.. yeah.. quite likely." (laughs)
Grandey: "[Were you saying that] it's very likely that Donald's mother is Scrooge's sister."
interviewer: "Allright."
Barks: "Allright. That's a good explanation." (laughs)
interviewer: "[O yeah.]"

Carl Barks meets his fans - talks about Donald Duck, Disney
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gPcaKTaPbjg
Youtube-info: A interview taped in Stockholm, Sweden 1994.

Corrections are welcome. I can't hear the word that Barks says before "He'd better be."
Daniel73
Member
 
Posts: 313
Joined: Fri Jun 02, 2006 4:40 pm
Location: Netherlands

Postby Rockerduck » Thu Aug 24, 2006 12:29 am

Daniel73 wrote:There's an Italian newspaper article from about 1994, in which Barks apparently claims that Donald has no father or mother.

But there's at least one story in which Donald dresses up and thinks: "even my own mother wouldn't recognize me".
Rockerduck
Member
 
Posts: 262
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 6:40 pm

Postby pasoleati » Thu Aug 24, 2006 2:10 am

Just one question: has there been a sudden emergence of mind reading capable people as so many of you seem to know exactly what went on in Barks´s head when did his stuff?
pasoleati
Member
 
Posts: 13
Joined: Mon Aug 21, 2006 9:50 am

Postby so what » Thu Aug 24, 2006 12:14 pm

Barks did a family-tree for his own use, later he sent it to Rosa to help with his project. Nevermind what he said in that interview, he at some point did have clear idea how they are related.
so what
 

PreviousNext

Return to Other creators

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests

cron