Don Rosa video interview

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

Postby Daniel73 » Fri Aug 04, 2006 12:37 am

Rockerduck wrote:You can also see it with the 'newest' edition of the Dutch bimonthly Disney-magazine 'Katrien' ('Daisy'). The no. 4-2006 has exactly the same contents as no. 4-2000, with even the same cover. That's money easy made.

Republishing an existant issue as if it were a new issue, just by giving it a new number and some new letters, as reported on Dutch McDuck, is misleading customers. Among them subscribers. People expect 'Katrien' to stop soon, but that isn't a reason for such an issue. 'Katrien' started good, but after some time there were reprints from relatively recent Donald Duck Extra's, mainly just Donald-stories. I think 'Katrien' could have benefited a lot from the Duckies that, amongst others, Mau Heymans created in the 1990s. The Duckies stories, mainly gags, contained a lot of fresh new characters which got permission from Disney. I think the idea became a highlight of 1990s, but as I understood the concept was killed before 'Katrien' even had began. Only a few 'Duckies' characters were allowed. Mau Heymans was doing a good job, but it only lasted a few years before getting abandoned.
I think that if 'Katrien' would have had the new Duckies-universe characters, it would have been a succes. I'm afraid this is just a case of cheap short-term thinking, as it would have need some efoort and investment to get it done. But even with the few stories that were created especially for 'Katrien', there would have been plenty of room to use the characters. And it doesn't cost anything extra, as it comes from the same bottle of ink.

Are the Dutch editors the first to republish an existant issue as new, or are there precedents? I've understood that Egmont also is making cheaper productions. The recent colour scheme looks like being just a few standard colours, and the quality of many artists has dropped. Especially Don Rosa, Marco Rota and Vicar. As if no one is really proof-reading their stories, neither script-wise or art-wise.

The Dutch and Scandinavian countries are said to have the most Disney comics buyers, so how can this happen? I think that in the Netherlands a lot has changed in the mid-1990s when the Dutch editors were sold from one company to the other. Geïllustreerde Pers, V.N.U., and now Sanoma. As I understood it, editors have to work cheaper despite the good sales. Reason is that the umbrella-company is so big that they need the profits from one branche to solve financial problems of the other, and at the stock market they are expected to make more money each year.

In the movie 'Fierce Creatures' by John Cleese (Monty Python), there's an interesting scene that explains the principle. You buy a company, you milk it out and you get rid of it, making the umbrella-company bigger.
Maybe that could be an explanation for what's going on.

Rockerduck wrote:
Daniel wrote:That's why I tend to think of all comics as pulp. It's just material to attract costumers, to get their money into the editor's pocket.

No, you don't. You're always praising Barks' comics, and other Disney comics, like those from Daan Jippes, and Bernadó and Jonker's 'Madam Mim'-comics. And you're lyrical about the Dutch newspaper comic 'S1ngle'.

Comics are treat as pulp. Only relatively few people see it as art. Barks just made comics to have a job that he liked, and they were supposed to be read once and thrown away. I think that's the biggest charm about Barks's comics: many people don't want to throw them away, if though they should. And they like to see reprints of stories that they did throw away.
But look at how Barks has been first published and how, despite the good sales, his original art was burned, and how even photostats of already printed stories were cut up, edited or just thrown away. That's why some classic Barks stories are hard to reprint, having only a pulp comic of them in some instances.

A lot could be done to save the best Barks copies for the future, as should be with art. Even now Barks's work has proven again and again that it attracts customers, it's treated like pulp. For example, in the Netherlands, the recent Dutch Barks album-series contain facsimile-reproductions of Dutch issues, of Barks pages that apparently got missing from their archives. You can best recognize it by a blur over both the black and the colours. As if it's a colour-xerox, which it in fact basically is.
So, even when there are good photostats available, they just copy an old Dutch issue into a series that is meant to collect by the general audience and by fans. In 1994, NOVA showed Barks saying how much he liked the Dutch album series. The Dutch album series were known for their quality. But it has dropped. Recent albums look cheap, and they even tried to use Italian colouring, which is significantly different from the age-old Dutch colour-scheme. (Scrooge having a red jacket.)
Slowly but steadily the quality drops. It looks like the same mistake is made as in the late American 1950s, when Western decided to have cheaper, smaller paper. The quality of artists dropped, I've heard noticably Tony Strobl, and advertisements began to rule over the stories, which were butchered to make room.

I think that when money is being made, it attacts a lot of people who try to milk it out. Mauybe the Dutch supermarket company Laurus (Konmar) could also be an example. It was a popular supermarket, but there came more managers and more decisions to make it all cheaper and more profitable, by putting different franchises under one name and formula, and now the company has been sold to a former competitor. There was a time the supermarket had empty shelves, as if there was hunger in the country.
Deciding to put different franchise-formulas under one name means losing diversity. Some companies have different names for basically the same product, just to create diversity and attract customers. (Unilever) So when you start putting them together, problems can be expected. I knew that by school. I could predict it would go wrong. Why hire managers that are overpayed for a cheap decision that they can't oversee? I could do that for free. Even though it's hard to have such a lack of professional vision, as to destroy a company that you are supposed to protect from being destroyed. And I think the reason is money. If only because most employees will become more and more afraid for their job, the more people get fired through the time.

Just a rough brain-storm about economy. Barks's stories could last forever, but there's too much short-term thinking.

My doom scenario is that the Dutch editors are about to stop and that slowly there will be one European publisher for all countries, from Scandinivia to Italy. The many short Dutch filler-like stories already seem to a coöperation between Egmont and the Dutch editors, as Egmont publishes mostly long stories. And with "long" I already mean a ten-pager. Most Dutch stories are 1 to 4 pages long. Daan Jippes is already working for Egmont. The Dutch editors don't even have a Dutch name. Or should they be called Sanoma? An international name?
Maybe it's not a matter of predicting, but just summing up what's going on already.

Rockerduck wrote:Look above, what I wrote there. 1994 was thé year to do it, because it was Donald's 60th birthday. Can you think of any better motive to do such a tour?

Thanks for being so critical. I had forgotten about Donald's 60th anniversary. And I should, because there were suddenly many anniversaries. About almost every character got an anniversary. I'm exaggerating, but it looked like a hype to me.
As I understand it, the life-story of Scrooge was an attempt by the (Egmont?) editor to milk out Barks's concept. Already before Rosa was given permission to do it. Rosa thought he might do it the best. At least, that how I've understood it from DCML.

Rosa repeatedly has said that he was asked to do Barks-recycling. By readers and editors. If so, Rosa can only be blamed for getting along with too much, even going further as the editors expected.

Rockerduck wrote:And why are you so eager to portray Barks as some money-grabbing old crook, when normally, on the Dutch section, you're always defending him and praising him for his working ethics and his modesty. Is this another role?

Where do you see a "money-grabbing old crook" in my postings? I could turn it around and say that you seem to see Barks as a Santa Claus who's putting his entire life into making you happy from time to time. So you wouldn't only expect him to do a good job, but also to be satisfied with a relatively low salary. You could be an editor, that way.
Barks liked to draw and he liked to earn money as well. In Van Helden, Barks says he worked for the cheque-machine. It's common knowlegde.

Maybe you mean that I've said that Rosa is more into money than Barks. That's something I base on Rosa's internet-comments about money. As someone on the Dutch forum suggested, Rosa talks a lot about money in public. It's Rosa's goods right to earn money from his work and to self-promote, but I think he should be honest about it. Ironically, what I most admire about Rosa is that he manages to get an (as I read) higher payment at Egmont.

Something I suspect Daan Jippes also has managed, or I'd be very surprised. But so far I haven't heard anything about any such deal between Jippes and Egmont. Only about Rosa, when his strike leaked out. At the time, I think it was an Egmont editor who wrote to DCML, giving information on Rosa's status.

If certain artist get an higher payment, then it could be the fault of others being too easy on their lower payment. Some grandson-like readers seem to expect an artist to work for the lowest price as possible. Preferably for free. As I theorize, readers could be relucant to find out that their relation with an artist in fact mostly is about earning money. An artist loves you, but often wants to be paid for it. That's how the system works. I'm complaining about people denying that. Especially when they are paid more than others.
Or is the higher salary even that low, that there's reason to complain?

Anyway, I think that Rosa could have expected trouble with money and royalties. As an expert Barks-fan he could have picked it up from Barks's history and the letters in which Barks tells his fans that they'd better not get into comic book industry.
Daniel73
Member
 
Posts: 313
Joined: Fri Jun 02, 2006 4:40 pm
Location: Netherlands

Postby Daniel73 » Fri Aug 04, 2006 12:59 am

Rockerduck wrote:Of course I never said he was a 'Santa Claus', or he was 'forced' to do the European tour. Sure, he will have enjoyed some parts of it. I remember a bit of video, in which he admires Rembrandt's 'The nightwatch' in Amsterdam.

That's the Dutch NOVA programme, broadcasted as a short report of Barks's visit to the Netherlands. Unfortunately, it contained no footage of Dutch artists meeting Barks. I hope any such footage exists.

Rockerduck wrote:I just think he didn't like all the attention he was getting, all the publicity. I've read the accounts of some of the people who witnessed him on that tour, which are published at the site I linked to.

If you put them here, the ones you mean, then that would give clarity.

Rockerduck wrote:I've never said I believe Barks was working for nothing, or didn't want to make as much money as possible. Everybody wants that! I just meant that... well, you can read for yourself what I meant, as long as they don't read your over-exaggeration or mis-interpretation of my words-- and God knows where that's coming from.

Why take my comments personal about what you said? I'm writing long comments with lots of information about Grandey, Morby, Hamilton, Egmont, Rosa, Barks, etc. If I'm wasting my time on it, just say so. It won't stop me, but it's always nice to know whether or not people care at all.
Have you seen what I wrote about misusing the elderly? I was shocked about it. Am I one of the few?
Daniel73
Member
 
Posts: 313
Joined: Fri Jun 02, 2006 4:40 pm
Location: Netherlands

Postby Rockerduck » Fri Aug 04, 2006 1:26 pm

Oh no, by no means are you wasting your time. That information was very interesting, so continue to post such things. I just wanted to know why you think I see Barks as a kind of Santa Claus, 'cause I don't.
Rockerduck
Member
 
Posts: 262
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 6:40 pm

Postby Daniel73 » Fri Aug 04, 2006 2:47 pm

Rockerduck wrote:That information was very interesting, so continue to post such things.

Note that it's maintly a draft. I'm compiling points that can be used in a thesis or in an article, but only if further researched. I'm deliberately doing it from memory. Otherwise I would remember too much about who said what, revealing sources who want to stay out of this.
In fact, almost everyone rather stays out of this. (Except for Rosa, but he's mostly complaining about his own problems.)

Rockerduck wrote:I just wanted to know why you think I see Barks as a kind of Santa Claus, 'cause I don't.

That's just in way of speaking, as happens in the Dutch discussions. Some exaggeration to make clear what is being discussed. Also, in English the word "you" can mean both "jij" (addressing one person) en "jullie" (addressing all persons).

I'm mainly cynical about editors, because I think their policies have destroyed Duckburg. I think Duckburg is as dead as Rosa's $crooge.

American Disney comics were already dead when they began, using reprints from newspapers. Then editors decided to have some artists draw new stories. And so Barks was free-lanched in 1942. He got a zero-hour contract, so to speak. When Barks retired, the editors were already reprinting his stories. (See Uncle Scrooge 67)
Since then there's a habit of reprinting Barks and trying to imitate him. Now editors are getting cheaper and cheaper about supporting writers and artists, the comparison with Barks is harder and harder to see. (See Egmont, and the Dutch editors at Sanoma.)

When Barks started doing Disney comics in 1942, he already had decades of experience. In his youth, Barks learned drawing by following a course by mail. In the 1920s, Barks began working at a cartoon magazine. And in the 1930s, Barks got a hard course at the Disney studio, directly working with many other Disney people.

Editors advertise about how history is made, and about their artists following in Barks's footsteps. But how many artists have had the experience of Barks? Barks is called a "genius", while he said that it was in fact just 99% transpiration.
I think Barks never really cared about people praising him, as he knew how hard and long he needed to work, already before he wrote his first Duck story. And even then, Western needed to give directions when Barks was treading limits. For example, the toned-down prison school in 'House of Haunts'. (US 63)
Daniel73
Member
 
Posts: 313
Joined: Fri Jun 02, 2006 4:40 pm
Location: Netherlands

Postby Daniel73 » Fri Aug 04, 2006 2:55 pm

I've heard that some people say that Barks ('The Good Artist') isn't such a good artist, technically speaking. There's a general tendency to see Barks as great storyteller. So, in that respect, 'The Good Storyteller' could be a better title for Barks.
Since about 1954, Barks got help from his wife Garé, who was a good, professional artist in painting landscapes. Garé Barks deserves more attention, as she's mostly forgotten. Will Garé become some Maria Magdalene figure? We all know that Carl Barks was only married with us. :P
Daniel73
Member
 
Posts: 313
Joined: Fri Jun 02, 2006 4:40 pm
Location: Netherlands

Postby Daniel73 » Fri Aug 04, 2006 6:32 pm

Rockerduck wrote:[Kai Saarto's thesis] You mean you are actually just going to write down that there was a happy meeting between Barks and Rosa and everything was over? You're not going to mention that it looks like Barks gave Rosa what he wanted, just so that Rosa would finally leave him alone and stopped writing attacks at him on dcml?

I think the invitation from Barks to Rosa was to clear up misunderstandings. Deservedly or not. On DCML, Rosa sure has gone out of his way about Barks. At that the time of writing, internet was still only for a limited amount of people. Most were connected by their work at public companies and universities.

Rosa was one of the exceptions to have a direct connection, with Compuserve. Rosa complained a lot about how he had to pay for other DCMLers email, which made him intrusive almost from the beginning, if only about an internet provider. Because Rosa complained a lot. About William Van Horn as artist, and later Carl Barks as "evil genius" and other artists. When discovering how worldwide public his DCML-contributions were, Rosa wanted the DCML-maintainer to send him a list of email-adresses of DCMLers, to see if there were one or more certain persons among them. There also was a request to remove any emails that might be too harsh, and in connection with law-suit circumstances I found this remarkable. As far as I know, no contributions were delted. And otherwise it would mean that there have been even more harsh contributions than the archived ones.

Don Rosa wanted people to look at him as just a fan, but he behaved like a primadonna who's only kind when life goes his way. Reading his complaints about Barks, I'm not at all surprised if Barks wanted to keep a certain distance. Rosa is too intrusive. Or let's say, too enthousiastic and impulsive. Rosa might be a clear example of a fan trying to get too close to his idol, and becoming a professional only makes that worser. If only for the reason that Rosa himself has fans now, believing Rosa on his word and encouraging him to give answers on his view on Barks, which are then taken as if the elusive Carl Barks himself is talking through Rosa.
When being confronted with that, Rosa gets defensive and claims that it's against his will, but from the outside it looks as if Rosa enjoys the (Barks)attention far too much, especially blind followers. His last story 'Prisoner of White Agony Creek' has been announced by him as if it were an advertisement, finally giving readers a chance to see what happened in Barks's so-called unfinished 'Back to the Klondike'. Both Barks-fans and Rosa-fans are confused by such deliberate Barks-Rosa mix-ups, whether or not Rosa intends them that way.

Internet is full of Barks-Rosa mix-ups, and Rosa's complaints so far have been very few in comparison with the new Barks-Rosa mix-ups he keeps on creating, in story in word.
So, if Barks invited Rosa to leave him alone, the visit certainly has failed. Rosa goes on. And maybe his explanation of internet being small and limited in 1993/1994, could be seen as only an excuse for a lack of self-control.

My theory is that the main reason for Barks's invitation in 1998, has to do with the circumstances at Atlanta in 1993. I think Rosa's complaints on DCML were only an echo of problems going on in real life, which were solved in real life. As I understood on DCML, Carl Barks himself wanted to have a report of the meeting, showing that everything is fine. I seem to remember Rosa explaining something like that.
What disturbed me was that, after the visit and the article, there were still many loose ends on for example DCML, which were never cleared up. The subject of The Dark Years already was a taboo on DCML. And so, cynically, the rosy Rosa visit report only raised more questions.

Having such a rosy publication in Gladstone's Uncle Scrooge 341, looks as if editor Hamilton still got his way. "History will be made."
Finally, at last, after years of quarrell, Carl Barks has been wise enough to adopt his (Bruce Hamilton's) son Don Rosa.

I don't say it's intended that way, but the effect is the same. The article looks a bit too rosy. At least for the critical reader. If just for the question: Why only Don Rosa?

Where are William Van Horn, Daan Jippes, John Lustig and Pat Block? Or are they the persons Don Rosa is referring to, in his report on the visit? Was that blaming another stupid mistake by Rosa, suggesting the blame on other people again.
Did Carl Barks ask Don Rosa to blame people on DCML, as part of a report? Are Grandey and Morby member of DCML? And so, even after a fresh visit to his hero Carl Barks, Don Rosa can't stop blaming and complaining.
If there are people to blame on DCML, for having taken part in The Dark Years, Don Rosa would be one of them. No rosy article will be able to hide that. It only raises questions and even more suggestions of how wrong Idol Barks was to poor Rosa.
Daniel73
Member
 
Posts: 313
Joined: Fri Jun 02, 2006 4:40 pm
Location: Netherlands

Postby jimbo » Fri Aug 04, 2006 8:05 pm

Daniel73 wrote:Because Rosa complained a lot. About William Van Horn as artist

As far as I can tell Rosa has always spoken highly of Van Horn's abilities as an artist. He has complemented Van Horns skill with brush, ability to make good cover designs and said he is better cartoonist than him and Pat Block put together. Even though he said that he preferred the look of Block's more traditional ducks to more cartoonish Van Horn.
jimbo
 

Postby H.H.F » Fri Aug 04, 2006 8:39 pm

Daniel73 wrote:Finally, at last, after years of quarrell, Carl Barks has been wise enough to adopt his (Bruce Hamilton's) son Don Rosa.

I don't say it's intended that way, but the effect is the same. The article looks a bit too rosy. At least for the critical reader. If just for the question: Why only Don Rosa?

Where are William Van Horn, Daan Jippes, John Lustig and Pat Block? Or are they the persons Don Rosa is referring to, in his report on the visit? Was that blaming another stupid mistake by Rosa, suggesting the blame on other people again.
Did Carl Barks ask Don Rosa to blame people on DCML, as part of a report? Are Grandey and Morby member of DCML? And so, even after a fresh visit to his hero Carl Barks, Don Rosa can't stop blaming and complaining.
If there are people to blame on DCML, for having taken part in The Dark Years, Don Rosa would be one of them. No rosy article will be able to hide that. It only raises questions and even more suggestions of how wrong Idol Barks was to poor Rosa.

I must be missing some pages from my U$317 since nothing of the above is mentioned in my version.

Why only Rosa? What do ya mean? There were like 3-4 other ppl, Gerry Tanks, Naiman and some others. Barks invited those. Who else would they need?

Everything below that is like hebrew to me!
H.H.F
 

Postby Daniel73 » Fri Aug 04, 2006 9:05 pm

H.H.F wrote:I must be missing some pages from my U$317 since nothing of the above is mentioned in my version.

That's exactly the point. On DCML there's much more information.

H.H.F wrote:Why only Rosa? What do ya mean? There were like 3-4 other ppl, Gerry Tanks, Naiman and some others.

They are no Disney creators. Gerry Tank visited Barks regularly, being a friend. And Michael Niaman, a friend of Rosa, is the reporter who wrote the article for Uncle Scrooge 317.

H.H.F wrote:Barks invited those. Who else would they need?

William Van Horn, Daan Jippes, John Lustig and Pat Block.
Daniel73
Member
 
Posts: 313
Joined: Fri Jun 02, 2006 4:40 pm
Location: Netherlands

Postby Daniel73 » Fri Aug 04, 2006 9:28 pm

Daniel73 wrote:Having such a rosy publication in Gladstone's Uncle Scrooge 341, looks as if editor Hamilton still got his way. "History will be made."

I mean Gladstone's Uncle Scrooge 317. Gemstone's Uncle Scrooge 341 contains a "frame-story" for Barks's classic 'The Magic Hourglass'. Written by Gary Leach and drawn by William Van Horn.
http://coa.inducks.org/issue.php/x/us/US++317
http://coa.inducks.org/issue.php/x/us/US++341

The article in Uncle Scrooge 317 (January 1999) is titled 'A Journey to Duckburg - by Michael Naiman'. It looks like a report of a fine day. That's great. But if Barks did it to solve matters for the public as well, it has failed. The way I see it is that the day was mainly intended to show Rosa that Barks wasn't an "evil genius" at all, and that something has gone wrong since Atlanta in 1993.

As Uncle Scrooge 317 is a production from Bruce Hamilton, the article could cynically be titled "History will be made". As it turned out, the Atlanta-chaos turned to be rewarding, looking from the outside. And I say clearly: Looking from the outside.
People from DCML who had to bear with the echoes of the chaos, never got answers to what all the noise and loose ends were all about, even though Rosa openly shared them on internet. In Rosa's report on DCML, he just leaves someone the blame and he goes on with receiving praisings from his from many "friends" and fans. As if it's rewarding to be brutal about Barks.

Given the overprotection Rosa gets, it's no surprise that he may never see how bizarre his own role has been in The Dark Years, making nasty comments about Barks. There's a lesson to be learnt from that. You can't just solve a public affair by having a nice day and some photographs of it. There was more going on and there are still a lot of questions to be answered, at least for serious biographers.
Daniel73
Member
 
Posts: 313
Joined: Fri Jun 02, 2006 4:40 pm
Location: Netherlands

Postby Rockerduck » Fri Aug 04, 2006 10:08 pm

Daniel73 wrote:I've heard that some people say that Barks ('The Good Artist') isn't such a good artist, technically speaking. There's a general tendency to see Barks as great storyteller. So, in that respect, 'The Good Storyteller' could be a better title for Barks.
Since about 1954, Barks got help from his wife Garé, who was a good, professional artist in painting landscapes. Garé Barks deserves more attention, as she's mostly forgotten. Will Garé become some Maria Magdalene figure? We all know that Carl Barks was only married with us. :P

There is a web-page which sums up some errors Barks has made when drawing:
http://www.cbarks.dk/thebaddrawings.htm

In the Van Helden-book you name, there are two pages contributed by Daan Jippes, in which he says Barks wasn't always correct in his drawings, when looked at perspective and proportion.
Rockerduck
Member
 
Posts: 262
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 6:40 pm

Postby Jimbo » Fri Aug 04, 2006 10:09 pm

H.H.F wrote:Barks invited those. Who else would they need?

Daniel73 wrote:William Van Horn, Daan Jippes, John Lustig and Pat Block.

Most of those guys had visited Barks earlier. I guess this visit was about Rosa and Barks. Didn't Van Horn, Jippes and Lustig at least had Gready & Morby as agents as well? Perhaps they were out of Barks favor at the time or those managers did not want them to have anything do with Barks or Rosa.
Jimbo
 

Postby Rockerduck » Fri Aug 04, 2006 10:21 pm

Daniel73 wrote:Note that it's maintly a draft. I'm compiling points that can be used in a thesis or in an article, but only if further researched. I'm deliberately doing it from memory. Otherwise I would remember too much about who said what, revealing sources who want to stay out of this.
In fact, almost everyone rather stays out of this. (Except for Rosa, but he's mostly complaining about his own problems.)

It would be interesting to find out more about this. I know no biography of Barks which mentions these things. Mostly then mention Barks' time in retirement as a productive, but rather happy time. Nowhere, I find stories about the managers, or any lawsuit, or all the other things you've mentioned. I've made some kind of biography about Barks, myself, for McDuck.nl, but this was not included, because I hardly knew/know anything about it.

Daniel73 wrote:I'm mainly cynical about editors, because I think their policies have destroyed Duckburg. I think Duckburg is as dead as Rosa's $crooge.

I think you've been looking to much just to The Netherlands, and the Dutch productions. And when looking at Egmont, I get the feeling you only look at the Egmont-stories published in The Netherlands. I've referred many times to the German publications. Have a look at: http://www.ehapa-comic-collection.de/disney.jsp
When I look at what they publish, and what's being published in Italy, I really am thrilled, and can't say Duckburg is dead-- at all!

Daniel73 wrote:American Disney comics were already dead when they began,using reprints from newspapers. Then editors decided to have some artists draw new stories. And so Barks was free-lanched in 1942. He got a zero-hour contract, so to speak. When Barks retired, the editors were already reprinting his stories. (See Uncle Scrooge 67)

But you'll have to admit that Barks put *life* into these comics, didn't he? If Disney comics were dead already by then -which is nonsense, because Gottfredson and Taliaferro were creating new adventures-, Barks made them alive again.

Daniel73 wrote:Since then there's a habit of reprinting Barks and trying to imitate him. Now editors are getting cheaper and cheaper about supporting writers and artists, the comparison with Barks is harder and harder to see. (See Egmont, and the Dutch editors at Sanoma.)

There have been many good artists who have followed Barks. Rosa once was very good, and William van Horn, Marco Rota, and Daan Jippes & Fred Milton. I agree, all have declined since then, but the 1990's was a golden era.

And now, new things are being tried with Egmont and Italy. There are new, talented artists. So Duckburg is not dead.

But it isn't quite as good as it was, that's something we can agree on. Mostly, the scripts lack quality. The drawings are often all-right, if not fantastic. I'm not saying all scripts suck -I enjoy many stories today- but it doesn't come close to the 1990's.
Rockerduck
Member
 
Posts: 262
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 6:40 pm

Postby Daniel73 » Sat Aug 05, 2006 12:44 am

Jimbo wrote:[William Van Horn, Daan Jippes, John Lustig and Pat Block.] Most of those guys had visited Barks earlier. I guess this visit was about Rosa and Barks.

Okay. Then it's interesting to see how much attention has been given to Barks's meetings with William Van Horn, Daan Jippes, John Lustig and Pat Block. My question in this is why Don Rosa got special attention in an Uncle Scrooge, and not the meetings with the others?
I think I've seen a (Scandinavian?) video in which Carl Barks and William Van Horn are discussing Van Horn's pencils for 'Horsing Around With History', which must have been about 1994. Barks suggests and I think even draws how he thinks the disguised Beagle Boys should look. Has any attention been given to that by Gladstone or Gemstone? That would be interesting.
I've also seen scans of pencils by Pat Block for 'Somewhere in Nowhere', which much have been about 1997. They show penciled corrections by Barks, for example a scene where 'he thinks there should be more fog, or something. This story was based on an idea by Carl Barks, and I've understood that Grandey (mis)used it to make it a new Barks story. This maybe why people at DCML, knowing Barks, denied the new Barks story. As I understood and theorize it, Barks was asked by Grandey to think of a story for Lustig, and that Barks thought it was meant to give Lustig a help in writing a story. Lustig, when given a synopsis in two versions, was then led to believe that it was a new Barks project like 'Horsing Around With History', with the difference that Barks now only made a synopsis, instead of writing out a text-script. That's why Lustig was asked in the first place. And Daan Jippes was hired to draw the art, which stepped out because of disagreement about payment.
As far as I know, Grandey was the one arranging it and contact between Lustig and Barks was via him (Grandey). I don't know if Jippes and Barks ever met at that time. Reportedly, Jippes was involved in an early phase of the story, which started as a ten(?)-pager. During the making the story got much longer, at least. I don't know at which moment Jippes stopped working and how Block came into the picture.
It's easy to conclude from the different involved names alone, that this is a typical project of too much people getting involved. I've understood that during the writing there were ongoing suggested changes said to be from Barks. I suspect these were mainly by Grandey.

As for Block entering the stage, I think it's easy to theorize further by suggesting that Block may have been led to believe that this was a second 'Horsing Around With History', and maybe somewhere around this time, Barks was led into correcting Block's pencils, without knowing that this is going to be a new Barks story. This depends on how the credits would have been given by Grandey, I think.

In short, you get the same comic book story, but people are lured into it by getting misleading information from some manager. The difference would be crediting:
- a story scripted by Barks, with some help of Lustig/Jippes/Block
- a story scripted by Lustig/Jippes/Block, based on ideas by Barks (via Grandey), with some additional help of Barks (via Grandey)

I've seen photo's of Barks, Lustig and Block presenting the story, or discussing it, either in private or in public. Possibly, neither of them knew how they were led into the project. And maybe they (still) trusted Grandey to have handled it fine as a manager should.
I don't know if the photo has been taken before or after Barks's departure of Grandey and Morby. It could be before or after the publication, depending on the whereabouts of the art as shown. As I remember it, it was not just a comic, but the b/w art/photostats shown.

This is all based on what I remember having heard, read, seen, whatever. Maybe there are articles about the story now. In a Gemstone, for example. That would be interesting.

I've heard the final story was rejected by the Dutch editors and Egmont for being too expensive. But I suspect that the mysterious surroundings about who did exactly what and why, has been a big reason not to buy it. Also, the story shows some scenes that seem forced into it. This is to be expected with a such a way of working on a story, with ongoing directions during the making. Personally, I think the story flows better than 'Horsing Around With History', which I find confusing with the disguised tailors have a button and a bird, while the nephews repeatedly say how normal everything is. (Or whatever it was.)
It might be interesting to know how Barks got into 'Horsing Around With History', as I think that if he was involved, he would have scrapped/changed some scenes. The Scandivian video I remember, show Barks making changes in a late pencil phase, as with Block. But I will have to check to be sure of the differences between pencils/art as shown in that video ('Horsing') and on the scans I've seen at Ebay ('Somewhere').
Could 'Horsing Around With History' be a similar case of a manager being between the writer and the artist? How involved was Barks with that story?

A difference between the making of 'Horsing Around With History' and 'Somewhere in Nowhere' is that the first had a type-script with panel numbers, which Van Horn followed. 'Somewhere in Nowhere', on the contrary, was based on a synopsis in two alternate versions, shortly send after each other. And if that wasn't confusing enough, there were also additional corrections which were difficult to put in, getting some sort of kwantum mechanica situation. In that light, 'Somewhere in Nowhere'' is quite an effort by Lustig, Block and (more or less) Jippes.
The difference lies in knowing whether or Barks knew he was working on a second new story. As he saw Block's pencils, he must have known about a connection. Unless the story was only partially shown, suggesting it was just a Block-story. But that's a guess too far.

Interestingly, there's a colour pencil by Barks which shows a scene that is also in 'Somewhere in Nowhere'. A colour pencil like the ones in 'Barks Treasury' (1997).
Image

One of the Block-covers for 'Somewhere in Nowhere' has the same scene, referring to a scene in the story:
Image

As I imagine it, this could have been an independent picture that was later used as a cover scene for a story which, at that moment, maybe didn't have any such scene at all.
The so-called "alternate" cover, shows a similar scene, but then with dogs pulling the sled, lured forwards by a fishing-rod held by Donald. (A widely used idea.) I was suspicious about that one, but I remember having seen a Barks pencil with the scene. I think it was a pencil sketch like the ones that are known from the making of the colour pencils. The pencil sketches were circulated by fax, with notes describing when Barks used an additional blue or red colour, and the price.

Such a fax transfer also happened with Block's art of 'Somewhere in Nowhere'. With almost unreadable lettering as a result, making the story difficult to folllow. A very amateurish presentation. Why not send xeroxes by mail? It's the final art, as far as I know. Xeroxes of the faxes circulate among fans, having given a change to see the story, somehow somewhere coming from potential buyers who had received faxes from the 'Carl Barks Studio'.
Daniel73
Member
 
Posts: 313
Joined: Fri Jun 02, 2006 4:40 pm
Location: Netherlands

Postby Daniel73 » Sat Aug 05, 2006 4:57 am

Jimbo wrote:[Rosa visiting Barks] Didn't Van Horn, Jippes and Lustig at least had Gready & Morby as agents as well?

Do you mean this a question or as a fact? I remember no information about Grandey and Morby being agent of Van Horn, Jippes and Lustig, apart for them taking part in 'Horsing Around With History' and 'Somewhere in Nowhere'. You don't mention Block here. Do you forget to mention him?

There's an important principal difference between having agents and being a free-lancher. I only remember that Grandey and Morby had some direct/indirect connection in selling some Van Horn art, which could have at the convention earlier than Atlanta in 1993, where Rosa got into an argument with either Grandey and Morby, or with people witnessed by them. As I understood it, this earlier convention was a just public event as any convention. I don't know if Grandey and Morby were Barks's managers at that time.
I've understood the argument was about Rosa protesting against the selling of Van Horn's art, as Rosa himself was protesting against Disney's policy of keeping the artists' comic book art after submitting it.
Disney had stopped the licensing of Hamilton's Gladstone comics, by publishing the comics themselves, without a licensee between it. An editor told (DCML?) about the final set of Carl Barks Library having blurry cover reproductions, like bad photo's, because otherwise the CBL wouldn't have been complete. I guess that haste could have to do with Disney taking over, but that should be researched.
As for Gladstone's policy, I don't know if they did return (in this case) Rosa's art. Maybe the answer can be found on DCML, among Rosa's accounts about Disney the evil empire, as it was pictured. But as I guess, Gladstone did return the art.

I don't know what kind of Van Horn art it was that Rosa reportedly was protesting about at that earlier-than-Atlanta convention. Was it Van Horn art especially made for Grandey and Morby? If so, then they still could be some commercial collectors, buying and reselling it. Therefore I'm very reluctant about using the word "agent" in connection with creators other than Barks.
And they could have been witnesses of the argument, other than being participants. I've understood Rosa was asked to talk about the matter further in a separate room, away from the public, but that Rosa might have seen it as an insult.
In shops there's a policy of luring critical (or loud) customers away from the rest of the public, to have a cup of coffee for example. For some this could be a reason for protesting even more, and having a situation that gets noisy. But I'm just theorizing about that. It would be a discussion on whether Rosa was noisy or not, and I'm more interested in what the argument itself was about.

As far as I know, in 1993, Van Horn and Lustig free-lanched for Egmont. And Jippes free-lanched for the Dutch editors. I'd be surprised if the editors would agree to have any "agents" in-between. If Van Horn art was sold at convention, it must have been just an illustration or maybe Gladstone art, from the time before Disney took over the comics. But then, why didn't Rosa sell his Gladstone art? That's why I think of the possibility that the Van Horn art could be an illustration like some sort of fan illustration.

What I can't place in the picture, is why Rosa would have an argument about Van Horn's art being sold. What does Rosa have to do with that? Is it because Rosa has a disagreement with Disney? As I understood, Rosa reasoned that the selling of Van Horn art, would mean that Disney might not agree with returning (Rosa's) comic book art.
I don't know if Rosa was upset about Van Horn himself. Rosa made some comments on DCML that might be interpreted that he was protesting against Van Horn in some way, being jealous or so, but the comments were mainly artistic views. I recall only a few Rosa comments on Van Horn.
A reason why the convention prior to Atlanta seems to have had little attention, is that Rosa was asked about Atlanta. That may be the first time the matter is brought up.

Rosa has complained many times about selling of (Rosa's) art. I remember Rosa complaining on DCML about a fan that got a drawing that he was supposed to keep. And there have been many other complaints from Rosa about people selling fan-drawings at Ebay. And I've understood that Michael Naiman was selling Rosa art, in late 1990s or early 2000s. I think was some cover for a Gladstone-story. Is Michael Naiman an agent of Don Rosa?

Rosa reasons that he doesn't want to draw illustrations for undercover-sellers, making money out of his convention efforts (or his private efforts). I don't know if Rosa's protests have any connection with any law, or that it's only his personal opinion. Rosa has done many efforts to stop the selling of his fan art. I remember something about stamps being put on the fan drawings, before given to the fan. Even though I can't believe someone would really go that far. Ironically, people might get interested in buying such an authentic stamped Rosa fan-drawing. If only to believe their eyes. :)

I guess the argument about the selling of Van Horn's art at a convention in/prior 1993, may have been such a reasoning about business and money, in the sense that Rosa can be very demanding in the way he makes his point clear to others. The argument may have been a reason for Grandey and Morby to dislike Rosa, and vice versa.
But then there's still the question if that was personally or professionally (or both). I don't think that personal reasons are a reason to just keep Rosa away from Barks. I think it was a professional reason.

I don't know if Grandey and Morby were disturbed before Atlanta, or even during Atlanta, but I can imagine that they didn't like being send print-outs of internet-postings, containing rants from Rosa about Carl Barks being an "evil genius". As I understood, Grandey and Morby didn't have internet. And I've never seen any proof on DCML.
These prints-outs apparently upset them. And then they made the mistake of handing a selection out in a blue booklet that was included among their Barks material. At least that happened in the package I received, as a fan, years after the law-suits between Rosa, Grandey and Morby, which (as I remember) ended in 1995.
The settlement was announced on DCML. As I understood, Rosa should have put the agreements on DCML, but he claimed modem problems. Lustig then put the information on internet, raising questions about what his role was then. As I understood, Lustig was one of the few to have internet and so he passed information from one side to the other. As any internet-user could have done, as the information was public.
I've always felt that Lustig got bashed and cheated. Also by Grandey and Morby, because Lustig's name is shown as being the source on a print-out, as can happen with any internet print-out or fax. It wasn't erased from the booklet and so Lustig got the blame for being a messenger.
And if Lustig is to blame for being a DCMLer printing out DCML for others, then I know a lot more evil people. One of them being a friend of mine, who printed DCML for me. That's how I got aware of DCML's existance, before I joined in 1995. People were passing diskettes and paper copies.

On DCML (and maybe just everywhere) there's a general tendency of all-too-easily putting the blame on someone. There's always one (different) person who is to blame. This gives a lot confusion about who Rosa means in his 1998 DCML-report on visiting Barks, about the DCML-person(s) that's to blame for Dark Years. In private exchange with people, Rosa complains about a fan (me) being to blame, calling me some associate of the Carl Barks Studio, and I find it disturbing as Rosa seems to have a free will in who he's playing and arguing with. Also because this leads to believe that Barks's managers weren't so bad, as Rosa easily demonizes just about any person.
Practically speaking, Rosa is upset because people tried to contact Barks. For most people there was no other choice than to deal with Grandey and Morby. Until Barks himself saw the light. Getting in trouble with Grandey and morby, might mean that you either never get to see him, or that even Barks himself would have got angry. Pick your choice.

The main difference between Rosa and other creators, is that Rosa was too impulsive in putting clumsy hot-heated comments on internet, about how Barks was bad for not giving Rosa enough attention. Ironically, Rosa later gave a description of his "cold" Barks correspondence, which gave a rosy view on how the correspondence was. This was in the years after the visit to Barks in 1998.

I don't think there's a conspiracy. Mostly just clumsiness. And maybe Grandey and Morby are the type of greedy selfish people who just think they can do everything. And as it turned out they almost could do anything. As if Scrooge-creator Barks got trapped into his own stories. I've always wondered how BARKS's relation was with Grandey and Morby.

If there would be one person to blame for keeping Grandey and Morby in for so long, then it might be Barks himself. I think that Rosa, Van Horn, Jippes, Lustig, Block are creators whom Barks knew from a distance.
Daniel73
Member
 
Posts: 313
Joined: Fri Jun 02, 2006 4:40 pm
Location: Netherlands

PreviousNext

Return to Other creators

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests

cron