Don Rosa video interview

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

Postby Kai Saarto » Tue Aug 01, 2006 2:16 pm

I'll do my absolute best to hear all sides of that story. You seem to be certain that there is lot of fishy thing going on, can you provide any evidence that managers were scapegoats or your other points are true? Who are you actually defending here, 2 managers??? I'm sure that you know Barks sued them as well and kicked them out his house. Bruce Hamilton sued them also.

Meeting between Rosa and Barks that was featured in U$ 317 you have to take with certain face value. It was necessarily short and included only positive thing about both artist just because of the medium it used. What you can deduct out of it, is that it was Barks who invited Rosa and it went pretty civil. Also, Barks never objected to its contents. Saying that the whole article was just pro-Rosa propaganda is just too far-fetching.

You say Barks never praised Rosa like he did some other artists. Does that automatically mean he hated Rosa's guts? You seem to think Barks as a pretty one-dimensional figure. Sure, he did not share Rosa's vision of a some kind of set history for Scrooge. Barks was a gag-man, Rosa had different vision. I think Barks was far more greater man you lead us to believe, you think he would hate someone on those grounds? If he had such antipathy towards Rosa, why did they change letters to each other since 70s, why did Barks provide Rosa with story ideas, why did he invite him to his home?

Saying that it was all because Rosa bullied him for decades is just ignoring any evidence of opposite and stubbornly sticking to some crazy idea just for the sake of it.
Kai Saarto
 

Postby Daniel73 » Tue Aug 01, 2006 4:23 pm

A hasty reply. To my knowlegde, the managers Grandey and Morby met Carl Barks and his wife Garé Barks in the 1980s already. The Carl Barks Library contains a quote by Grandey about Barks having a spontaneous story idea about
I've heard it was Garé who trusted the couple to run Barks's matters, and that inially there was friendship after the mangers were interested in buying a painting for a high price. What I've understood is that the behaviour of the managers changed through the years, the closer they got to Barks. Going even as far as to extremely urge Carl Barks to make another Duck painting, which Barks didn't want to do because he found was getting too old to keep up his quality standard. As I understood, this became the painting which shows Scrooge with dollar-sign smoke-signals, including an helicopter requested by the buyers. (Given date is July 1997).
Pictures of the painting show that Barks did a good job once again, but even only for this matter it would be understandable that he wanted to stop working with the managers. I remember that abuse of the elderly was one of the reasons being given among Barks's complaints in the law-suit, which took place in about 1998/1999. An American magazine published an article about what happened, including a weird story about Barks selling his name for (what was it?) $2000 to the managers, and Barks replying in court that the managers apparently seem to think he's crazy.
Afterwards, also after Barks's death in 2000, it has been rumoured that they were behind the selling of much unseen Barks material on internet at Ebay, including material that - as I heard - Barks would never sell, and material that belonged to others.
This is just a summary of what I've understood through the years, about Barks and the managers. Corrections and additions are welcome. I've always felt that this is a story which deserves to be investigated further: What happened with Carl Barks in the 1990s? From being a remarkable Disney comics creator in the 1960s, he became known as a master. But in the 1990s I think that Barks got more and more into "stardom", praised by companies who benefit from his stardom.
There has been a story about Barks supposedly being just interested in earning as much money as possible. What I've understood was that Barks was interested in making some money for himself, for his heritage. Which I think is a very reasonable way to have a living. As it apperently turned out, it became a managers-story that you can hear from many artists. Popstars, for example.
After Garé Barks died, Barks needed help to manage his artistic affairs, and reportedly it went wrong. Reportedly. O yes. Maybe I will make a lot of people really angry, but I have the feeling that Barks has been exploited while we were looking. I spoke a Dutch fan who saw the managers in real life in The Netherlands in July(?) 1994, and he said there was something "strange" about the managers and that one of them was very hard in timing and how things should go, and that Barks himself was a great and friendly human. But again, that's just an average popstar account. The managers being strong and the artist being interested in the people that want to meet him.
What I find very remarkable about the whole matters, is that this "stardom" can happen to a old man being in his 90s, in front of camera's, press, editors, creators and fans.
Wasn't there anyone who even thought of the possibility that something might have gone out of hand? That this "stardom" could also be a way of mistreating old people at the end of their life. Old people, who tend to get easy on things?

Please prove that I'm wrong. As I've witnessed it from DCML, Don Rosa was one of the first to complain about what was happening with Barks. In 1993 or 1994. He had a lot of guts to do that, even though it may also have been an underestimation of the power of internet. We can still see what he wrote, while many other involved parties kept silent. But I think that Rosa took it too personal on himself, and that his protest against Barks's managers gave them an easy excuse to have an enemie to put the attention to.

What happened between Rosa and the managers is, from what I've understood, just a parallel story that doesn't really have to do with Barks. Rosa has made clear that he only sued the managers. Problem was that these managers were living close with Barks, even as close as living in his house. So, I think it's understandable if Barks would have been mixed up in the matters. Barks and the managers worked under the same name, the 'Carl Barks Studio'. Or maybe Barks wasn't involved at all, as his managers were supposed to manage his matters. So, maybe they'd rather not involve him at all. I don't know. I've heard it was very heard to reach Barks in those days. Both in real life and by mail. That's one of the reasons why this period is called 'The Dark Age'.

Dark Age and Stardom. I see a methaphore in that.
Daniel73
Member
 
Posts: 313
Joined: Fri Jun 02, 2006 4:40 pm
Location: Netherlands

Postby Daniel73 » Tue Aug 01, 2006 4:33 pm

Daniel73 wrote:The Carl Barks Library contains a quote by Grandey about Barks having a spontaneous story idea about

I was looking that fact up, but forgot about it when writing on. Here's the rest of that unfinished line:
The Carl Barks Library contains a quote by Grandey about Barks having a spontaneous story idea about calory negating pills, in 1985, one night after dinner. (Carl Barks Library set 6, page 12.)

And, before people ask for it, here's the quote:
Bill Grandey in a December 17, 1985 letter to Geoffrey Blum: "Wouldn't it be great to have a pill that would negate calories? Gyro could invent one. Initially it would be a great success: formerly large people could be normal size without any effort. Picture various pig people becoming svelte. Then - as demonstrated by Gus Goose - a good thing can be overdone. Picture former fat people blowing around in a light wind!"
Daniel73
Member
 
Posts: 313
Joined: Fri Jun 02, 2006 4:40 pm
Location: Netherlands

Postby Daniel73 » Tue Aug 01, 2006 7:31 pm

A "stardom" difference between Barks and Rosa is that Barks did most of his work anonymously, until Barks's name and address was spread by fans in the early 1960s, as can be seen by in a Gladstone articles by Geoffrey Blum in which he shows an anthology of Barks's correspondence. Slowly Barks's name got into press. Donald Ault's book 'Carl Barks Conversations' shows an interview that began in 1962 but got delayed until 1968, because Barks didn't want to get into trouble with his editors.
It would be interesting to see where and when Barks's name is first being mentioned in press. Except for a local publication, showing a photo of Barks posing with art of 'The Old Castle's Secret', in about 1947. (Must be easy to check, with Barrier's book.) As Barrier's book shows, Barks was doing non-Disney art work in advertising at about that time, so maybe he had a local name as artist, at that time. It might be interesting to investigate that period, whether or not Barks was locally known as artist of Disney fame, or only as an artist under his own name. Anyhow the advertisement work shows that at least some people must have known and trusted Barks as artist. (Or are they studies? What does Barrier say?)

I believe that the 1968 interview that Daan Jippes picked up in the 1970s, translating it for a Dutch article in a comic collector magazine here in The Netherlands. Jippes writes that the interview gives him an impression of a man who's a bit weary about the attention he gets at the end of his comic book career. The interview has a contrast with how Barks later commented in interviews, I think.

Especially when Barks often gets the same questions, as sometimes has been video-taped during his 1994 European tour. One unpublished Dutch video lasting an about an hour or so, is circulating. I'm lucky to have a copy of a copy, and it has been shown to some fans, much to their (and my) amazement. The interview is interesting for asking Barks questions about his youth, where he gives long answers. This part has been transcribed in an English Donald Duck & Co. When it comes to Barks, I think the interviewer obviously doesn't know what all the stardom is about, asking Barks questions as if he researched Wim van Helden's book 'Carl Barks and the Myth of Walt Disney's Donald Duck'. The interview gets a bit strange and Barks is obviously trying to stay friendly despite, for example, an on-going questioning what Barks had with eggs. I still remember fellow Barks fans almost destroying their teeth looking at it. I think I even remember a question whether or not Barks smoked something during the making of his work. To which Barks replies he once quit smoking and never did it again. No idea if the question had a double meaning. During the video there's at least one cut, at a point when something seems to go wrong. Maybe someone interrupting or requesting to stop for a moment. If you're really seriously interested in original sources, you would have to see that for yourself. The footage is a bit alienating with the blue-screen behind Barks.
The video gives an interesting impression on how friendly Barks still behaves, even though things get boring and irritating. That's an interesting contrast to many of the known published/broadcasted video interviews.
I've been bottle-necking the footage due to my failing video VHS equipment. (Having made safety copies.) I have to figure how to digitize the video properly with my new computer, which should be able to do it. Or maybe you already have it, already?

There seems to be another clumsy Barks video interview. An official Finnish video-tape from the 1990s, of which I've only seen a negative description by a Fin, about how amateurishly Barks is interviewed. Title is Ankkamaestro (Carl Barks Maestro), or something like that. But that's a different interview than the Dutch one I mean.

Maybe you can make your study a multi-media presentation, with videos that actually show Barks-footage and Rosa-footage.
Daniel73
Member
 
Posts: 313
Joined: Fri Jun 02, 2006 4:40 pm
Location: Netherlands

Postby Daniel73 » Wed Aug 02, 2006 2:41 am

Rockerduck wrote:
Kai Saarto wrote:Supergoof figured you out pretty well, I presume.

What's there to 'figure out'? It's a Disney-forum, for crying out loud! Who are you, the CIA?

I think the whole identity stuff has gone to lead its own life, and out of proportion. Early last year a spontaneous roleplay started on McDuck. Someone was so funny sent a private email to Rosa, of which Rosa wrongly blamed me. And then I blamed that person, even going as far as to reveal matters about him that were none of my business.

A lot has been said about it, but the only thing I find important to say about myself is that I've always emailed under my own real name to DCML, including Rosa. So I think Rosa went out of his way by accusing me and by emailing you, wrongly suggesting and demonizing that I could be responsible. That's the kind of backbiting that I fear the most, the big artist vs the little reader. I was very upset about your 99%-report about Rosa being right and me being guilty. I see that as trying to set DCMLers up against people. Something which Rosa has done before, on DCML. So, I'm very thankful that you made that public.

What I'm wondering is if you really think it's a wise thing to do for an artist, to "trap" an innocent person with an email about how nasty a country is and how succesful he is? And that as a reply to an email that could have been any reader around the world? Wouldn't that be asking for trouble?

You accused me, by giving a report that you all too simply concluded with the bet that the matter was 99% clear to you, apparently not worrying too much about that one missing percent. It obviously showed people you were in doubt.
I was glad the moderation came, to be rid of such backbiting. For me the discussion was finished and I think DCML got to see some very interesting material that gives an interesting insight in how Rosa communicates and how his friends and fans respond to it.

I've tried to give information on DCML, including original sources, about what I thought was going on around Rosa. And I can always defend myself by saying that Rosa hasn't just only accused me, but also his own idol Barks as well. All by internet.

As I got personally involved in the effects of Rosa's stardom and the overprotective way how some people surround him, I find it important to show how easily an artist can (mis)use his "stardom", by getting too personal against readers.

So, I think you have an interesting subject to investigate. If you really want both sides of the stories, you might be next one getting into trouble with Rosa. Shall we bet? I've even seen Rosa attacking a friendly DCMLer about helping another DCMLer, who reported a bad experience with meeting Rosa at a convention.
If that was just some innocent joke by Rosa, he obviously underestimates his power. You can see on DCML how long Rosa got back into that, trying to get the persons real name and then using it to identify him as a black sheep.

It's so easy to be brave at DCML among "friends" who applaud if you blame the victim, praising Don Rosa. It's at cost of your own reliability if you do that.
I was a great guy when I helped Sigvald getting off the list, because he was harming Rosa's reputation by being too enthousiastic about him. Rosa told him that if Sigvald didn't stop writing on DCML, he (Rosa) wouldn't correspond with him (Sigvald) anymore. I'm disturbed that no one corrected me on that, as I made a huge mistake against Sigvald. No one seems to care. And he's a devoted Rosa fan.

There are too many examples.

Does Rosa know what it means when a star is writing a whole black-book together, waiting for people to compile? It has happened already, long ago, in a booklet that Barks's managers handed out to interested Barks fans. A booklet that I mentioned and described on DCML, and then getting attacked for that by a friend of Don Rosa?

Will Don Rosa and his friends and fans ever see how strange it looks from the outside, being so overprotective about an artist?
Daniel73
Member
 
Posts: 313
Joined: Fri Jun 02, 2006 4:40 pm
Location: Netherlands

Postby Daniel73 » Wed Aug 02, 2006 7:36 am

Kai Saarto wrote:
Rockerduck wrote:Your name isn't mentioned in Egg's post.

I am the only Finn doing such a work at the moment, certainly only one who has mentioned doing in it DCML.

Do you know how many DCMLers there are? And how many of them are Dutch and visiting McDuck?

Kai Saarto wrote:
Rockerduck wrote:Don't guess unless you're 100% sure. What if you're mistaken?

I read the forum enough to be sure. He mentions his likes, dislikes, favorite poet, specific posts he wrote to DCML or tried to wrote.

Did Egg really do that? Here on McDuck International? Or do you mean the Dutch section?

On McDuck, people are allowed to stay anonymous if they prefer. And there is tolerance in using multiple aliasses.
However, I'm also visiting DCML and I don't think it's wise for me to clarify old matters under an alias. I don't mind if people know about my real name, as long as they keep in mind that some others do insist on their right of privacy and anonymity.
Daniel73
Member
 
Posts: 313
Joined: Fri Jun 02, 2006 4:40 pm
Location: Netherlands

Postby Daniel73 » Wed Aug 02, 2006 9:31 am

Kai Saarto wrote:No such work will ever be complete, but yes, I it includes "evil genius". I will also include the story behind that, Carl Barks Studio ran by 2 individuals who were the people actually behind whole Barks vs Rosa thing. Rosa was misled, so was Barks.

How was Rosa misled? And was it only by the two managers, or also by editors praising Rosa to be a Barks follower, and by people on DCML who were trying their best to convince Rosa that indeed there was something going on. If you look in the archives you'll see remarkable writings. Already at that time there was a rumour that Barks was being misled. But the main attention went to Rosa complaining about himself and fans telling him not to be angry against Barks because Barks was an old man who didn't know better. I hope I'm wrong, but I remember an account of a fan who replaced an article about Barks for an article about Rosa, upset as he was about how Rosa was victimized. One theory was that Barks was jealous of Rosa's popularity and that he wanted to pester Rosa by going to Europe.
Did you skip all that? Or does your university accept a story about two Disney artists who simply got victimized by two evil managers? Something like: "The managers made them do it." How are you going to prove that? Barks and Rosa were responsible for themselves, in the first place.

Compare Barks's public behaviour (as artist) in comparison to Rosa's behaviour (as artist), and see the difference. Rosa wasn't just complaining about managers, Rosa also was complaining about Barks not being warm enough in correspondence. Even though Barks was remarkably helpful to Rosa, thinking up a new story plot, about Scrooge and his first dime. Other creators would have been eternally thankful for such a grand effort by Barks, who was browsing through the Carl Barks Library to help Rosa with some family tree stuff, even though Barks wasn't much interested himself.
Rosa managed to complain on DCML about Barks's help. Have you found that quote already? Rosa keeps helpful correspondence for himself, but complains about it on internet to Barks-fans, as if Barks committed a crime. Was that also the fault of the managers?

The managers have been reported to be very very wrong, but doesn't mean you can just blame them for every fault Rosa has made. Even after that managers period was over, and Rosa had met Barks, Rosa still kept going on, by putting a comment in his report about some bad people being member of DCML. Rosa finally had met Barks, the matter was talked over, and Rosa uses the day to slam down an unknown person on DCML, with a mysterious hint.

My theory is that Barks was told how sad Rosa was, and that he (Barks) offered a day to convince Rosa that he (Barks) had no hard feelings at all. I think that Barks had his own problems coping with the managers, and that Rosa was just one out of many creators for him. Barks comments on Rosa are rare, and mostly Barks doesn't say much. Why would a master artist be busy with a fan artist? How did that story come into the world?
Barks was still working himself, making new creations. Did Rosa forget about that, with his 1967-complex and his dead Scrooge?

There have been other visits from creators to Barks. And why didn't Rosa meet Barks much earlier, in the 1970s or 1980s? Rosa has told DCML he was a great fan in the 1970s, making a fan index of Barks's work. Why did Rosa wait until 1993, when he was a professional Barks follower?
What has been the role of the editors in trying to get Barks and Rosa together, as a sort of father and son on a convention?

Kai Saarto wrote:I include legal papers between Rosa and Grandey and some of the following heated discussion in DCML, then I continue with the meeting between Barks and Rosa that was made afterwards and cleared air between them, with mutual forgivings.

Mutual forgivings? Mutual forgivings? What did Barks do wrong to Rosa then?
Daniel73
Member
 
Posts: 313
Joined: Fri Jun 02, 2006 4:40 pm
Location: Netherlands

Postby Kai Saarto » Wed Aug 02, 2006 9:37 am

Daniel73 wrote:A "stardom" difference between Barks and Rosa is that Barks did most of his work anonymously, until Barks's name and address was spread by fans in the early 1960s

Yes, exactly. That's one of the most interesting differences from my point of view.


Daniel73 wrote:There seems to be another clumsy Barks video interview. An official Finnish video-tape from the 1990s, of which I've only seen a negative description by a Fin, about how amateurishly Barks is interviewed. Title is Ankkamaestro (Carl Barks Maestro), or something like that. But that's a different interview than the Dutch one I mean.

Maybe you can make your study a multi-media presentation, with videos that actually show Barks-footage and Rosa-footage.

I haven't seen it myself. A very limited edition and at the time it was far beyond my budget. I seem to recall getting a bit negative commets of it, as well. Multi-media presentation would be fun to do, PowerPoint + video footage at some duck meeting is not out of the question, even if I'm not that much of an presenter.

By the way, excellent overview about the CB Studios, above.
Kai Saarto
 

Postby Weiner » Wed Aug 02, 2006 9:45 am

Daniel73, your posts are so big can you summarize?
Weiner
 

Postby Kai Saarto » Wed Aug 02, 2006 10:09 am

Daniel73 wrote:
Kai Saarto wrote:
Rockerduck wrote:Your name isn't mentioned in Egg's post.

I am the only Finn doing such a work at the moment, certainly only one who has mentioned doing in it DCML.
Do you know how many DCMLers there are? And how many of them are Dutch and visiting McDuck?

That has nothing to do with the sentence. I was mentioned INdirectly (left that all important IN out in OP, my bad), so I replied. I don't think this is a relevant point to discuss further.

Kai Saarto wrote:
Rockerduck wrote:Don't guess unless you're 100% sure. What if you're mistaken?

I read the forum enough to be sure. He mentions his likes, dislikes, favorite poet, specific posts he wrote to DCML or tried to wrote.

Did Egg really do that? Here on McDuck International? Or do you mean the Dutch section?

On McDuck, people are allowed to stay anonymous if they prefer. And there is tolerance in using multiple aliasses.
However, I'm also visiting DCML and I don't think it's wise for me to clarify old matters under an alias. I don't mind if people know about my real name, as long as they keep in mind that some others do insist on their right of privacy and anonymity.

I'm not much into these rolegames. I don't see you deny being the Egg, more just trying to play with my head. On these very forums on Welcome-thread a discussion between Egg and Rob Klein:

--------

Robb_K wrote:

Even Daniel van Eijmeren (whose DCML notice brought me here) has not been contributing to the discussions.

Egg responds:

On McDuck, as you may have seen, people rather stay under their alias. Also, some of them are acting in a roleplay. So I guess we'll never see Daniel here. Only a ranting scrambled egg calling itself a hiding chicken.


Robb_K responds:

Glad to know you are here, Daniel. Thanks for revealing your true identity.

-----

I think Egg hints being some bloke Pluizer as well. Above you wrote a long message about me suspecting you using an alias on DCML... of course I can't prove that for sure, but everything I see here about your roleplaying characters does not make me think I am wrong. Seems to be your habit to use take these roles ... more timid Daniel, crazy Egg whose life mission is to tell everyone about how nasty some artist is.

I am not the type who enjoys this, so I'll make my exit. I prefer DCML where I can somewhat rely on moderators to keep discussion civil and side personas at bay. As we have figured out years before, we just can't see eye to eye, especially when you have here several pairs, so we are just wasting each others time.
Kai Saarto
 

Postby Daniel73 » Wed Aug 02, 2006 4:54 pm

Kai Saarto wrote:I'm not much into these rolegames. I don't see you deny being the Egg, more just trying to play with my head.

Why do you keep on going about a rolegame? You're playing with your own head now. Just when I get critical about Don Rosa, you have suddenly an excuse to leave. Just as I expected. As for rolegames, I'm in doubt how serious your universaty thesis really is, and if your name really is Kai Saarto.

I'm giving lots of information, you even compliment me on that, but when I started writing about Rosa, suddenly Kai Saarto quits. Isn't that a stinking timing, Kai? Aren't you making yourself a bit suspicious? You come here like some CIA-guy, as Rockerduck already told you, and you're only really interested in the whereabouts about a certain Egg that you desperately want to unmask.

Do you think you will get far in life if you destroy your own research? Or isn't the research very important because you already have your own story in mind? You seem to have a "tunnel vision". You ignore whatever you dislike and you go for what you recognize.

Kai Saarto wrote:On these very forums on Welcome-thread a discussion between Egg and Rob Klein:

--------

Robb_K wrote:

Even Daniel van Eijmeren (whose DCML notice brought me here) has not been contributing to the discussions.

Egg responds:

On McDuck, as you may have seen, people rather stay under their alias. Also, some of them are acting in a roleplay. So I guess we'll never see Daniel here. Only a ranting scrambled egg calling itself a hiding chicken.


Robb_K responds:

Glad to know you are here, Daniel. Thanks for revealing your true identity.

-----

Well, isn't the answer given already then?

Kai Saarto wrote:I think Egg hints being some bloke Pluizer as well. Above you wrote a long message about me suspecting you using an alias on DCML... of course I can't prove that for sure,

You can't prove that at all. As I repeatedly said I've always used my real name on DCML. As you are proving now, it's very stupid to use a real name. You are abusing other people's identities. It's for people like you, that some people rather stay anonymous.

You are just here to search that last 1% to make your stubborn backbiting complete. Doing so, you are showing people how impossible you are, only interested in backbiting about a certain Egg. Come on. Get a life.

Will your thesis also contain such silly accusations? That not only the managers made poor Rosa do it, but also a Dutch reader? That would show Rosa to be an irresponsible person with a gullible mind and a big mouth. Is that what you want?

Kai Saarto wrote:but everything I see here about your roleplaying characters does not make me think I am wrong. Seems to be your habit to use take these roles ... more timid Daniel,

(Sigh!) Why am I even replying? You don't even read what's being written to you. Of course there is a habit of taking up roles if there's a roleplay. Is that what you want to prove? That people play roles when being in a roleplay?

Kai Saarto wrote:crazy Egg whose life mission is to tell everyone about how nasty some artist is.

Egg has mostly been involved in other topics. Look at the many topics Egg has contributed to. But no, Kai Saarto comes in and then Egg is the bad guy. Yes, Kai Saarto will tell us. Kai Saarto visits the universaty. :rolleyes:

Kai Saarto wrote:I am not the type who enjoys this, so I'll make my exit.

Suddenly Kai Saarto decides to make his exit. In the middle of a serious discussion. Kai is soooo interested in his research. Even when being offered a unpublished video tape about Barks, Kai just rambles on about a certain Egg. Are you a Barks fan?
You ignore interesting stuff just to prove that Daniël/Egg is a wrong guy. I'm even questioning if you are a real Rosa fan.

Kai Saarto wrote:I prefer DCML where I can somewhat rely on moderators to keep discussion civil and side personas at bay. As we have figured out years before, we just can't see eye to eye, especially when you have here several pairs, so we are just wasting each others time.

And here Kai Saarto desperately tries to find "proves" that Kai Saarto is better off in his little small tunnel vision club, safely surrounded by his icon Rosa, Rosa "friends" and Rosa "fans", where Kai Saarto freely can accuse innocent readers with the kind permission of a friendly moderator.

Kai Saarto is so intelligent that he publicly declares he needs a censor to keep his tunnel vision and Daniël-bashing intact.
It's always Kai who tries to attack Daniël and then declares that "we just can't see eye to eye". I've always been open for discussion. I can see you eye to eye.

But enough about me. Let's have another investigation. Who are you Kai Saarto? A Finnish Rosa-fan? What's the universaity you're visiting? How old are you? Wouldn't it be more interesting to just talk about your own identity, Kai?
Daniel73
Member
 
Posts: 313
Joined: Fri Jun 02, 2006 4:40 pm
Location: Netherlands

Postby Rockerduck » Wed Aug 02, 2006 6:18 pm

It's a shame to see you dismissing all Daniel's information, Kai, just because he may or may not use seceral different nicknames/aliasses. Why is the messenger that important? I think the message *itself* is what has to be discussed. Are you sure Daniel's many nicknames are a problem to you, or are his messages the problem, and can't tou refute them? Also, does it really matter what his 'life mission' is, or *why* he writes certain stuff? Isn't it important *what* he writes, instead of why he writes it?

I don't want to come of as Daniel's personal body-guard, or defender, or something, but I'm tired of seeing people -both on the Dutch as on the Englsih aprt- leave or not answer the points being made, because of the persons who post the information. Like that's relevant...
Rockerduck
Member
 
Posts: 262
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 6:40 pm

Postby lol » Wed Aug 02, 2006 7:01 pm

Daniel73 wrote:You are just here to do your stubborn backbiting complete. Doing so, you are showing people how impossible you are, only interested in backbiting about a certain Rosa. Come on. Get a life.

Corrected for Truth
lol
 

Postby Rockerduck » Wed Aug 02, 2006 7:02 pm

Concerning the meeting between Barks and Rosa, I've long believed the version Kai's telling. But Daniel has given me another way to look at it. I'm by no mean saying that he is right, or Kai is wrong, but I'm saying it can't hurt to look at both possibilities. I've re-read the article in the Uncle Scrooge comic, and to me, it comes of as a Rosa-advertisement, and also like the trip to Barks was made for the purpose.

Barks invited Rosa, but why? To welcome Rosa like his long-lost son, like the article wants us to believe? Daan Jippes visited Barks much earlier, in the 1980's. Jippes never wrote nasty stuff about Barks, but Rosa did. He wanted the dcml-readers to believe Barks was jealous of him, and that Carl even came to Europe just to take the attention away from Rosa. It looks like Rosa was being paranoid, and Barks invited him to get it over with, anf to make the bad press stop. Isn't that an option?

Dutch Duck-artist Maarten Janssens said about this: "Don't believe the hype. This is Disney's." Maybe there's a bit of truth in this. Disney can't use any fighting between two popular authors. Maybe that was a reason Barks invited Rosa (and by that I don't necessarily mean Disney asked Barks to do so).

The article about the meeting ends with: 'the new beginning of a new chapter in the life and times of Don Rosa and Carl Barks..' Dutch artist Mau Heymans, under an alias, commented on this, saying: "If I were an artist, even if I was Branca or Jippes themselves, I would find it horrible, even disgusting, if somebody would write in this manner about me and the Master."
Rockerduck
Member
 
Posts: 262
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 6:40 pm

Postby H.H.F » Wed Aug 02, 2006 7:27 pm

Why is it not a Barks-advertisement? Telling that the great Barks invited Rosa and friend to his home, and show him how the master himself did ducks. Showing that Barks is a good sport, despite that younger guy getting fame he missed during his active years.

If its written on a damn Disney magazine, what do ya expect it to contain, sharp critizism? Guy writing it does not win Pulitzer, but that does not necessarily mean the whole thing was set up for some darker purpose. Just to do a little nice feature for readers who like both artists.

I don´t buy these silly conspiracy theories some of you came up with. Is it so hard to believe that those two guys could have actually get along?
H.H.F
 

PreviousNext

Return to Other creators

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests

cron