Secondary characters

character identification, ducks, mice, etc.

Postby Rockerduck » Mon Aug 07, 2006 7:09 pm

This is taken from the topic 'Don Rosa video interview':

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.

WB wrote: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.

I have never understood why people would think like this. Why would they limit their own reading pleasure? They try to turn works of fiction, in which anything can happen, into th real world. Wasn't fiction designed so we could escape the real world from time to time?

WB wrote: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. =

That's why I wonder why Egmont forbids her artists to make stories featuring Ludwig von Drake. Don Rosa once said that, according to Egmont, Ludwig has to be considered "deceased". Mind you, this is not Rosa's idea, but Egmont's! So another Disney character is DEAD, and why?

Ludwig still appears in many Italian stories, as it should be! He also played important parts in Disney animated television series 'Mickey Mouse Works' and 'House of Mouse'. So why does Egmont want him to be "deceased"?

One reasoning I heard somewhere, is Egmont thinks the Duck universe already has Gyro, so Ludwig is not a neccesary character. This may've been true if the Ludwig from the comics was the same as the Ludwig from the cartoons. In the cartoons, he's an inventor like Gyro, but in the comics, she's a professor, who's an expert on any terrain you can think of.

*EDIT* boardlinking updated to McDrake
Last edited by Rockerduck on Sat Feb 10, 2007 1:54 am, edited 1 time in total.
Rockerduck
Member
 
Posts: 262
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 6:40 pm

Postby WB » Mon Aug 07, 2006 9:48 pm

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!

Agreed. Prior to Gemstone all we'd really had in the states that featured her was "The Last Balaboo" and "Secret of the Incas." Now I love her in the stories we've gotten so far. She's entirely different from Goldie and many other women in close to Scrooge in canon in that she's just a genuinely nice person and funny to boot. Donald and the nephews adore her and as much as Scrooge hates having to deal with her, he reluctantly has to accept that he likes her also. Bridgitta bring the concept of unrequited love to the table that doesnt make it cliche. Because of this it makes her more like a VERY CLOSE family friend who often pines for Scrooge as opposed to Goldie whom Scrooge pines for but can never drop his guard to have.

I'm rather curious as to whether a story has been done that features Bridgitta and Goldie actually meeting and if so, whether it would do the concept of the two women justice.

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?

I don't as we're only just now getting a regular dose of regular overseas characters here in the states, but it is certainly rather odd, isn't it? A 20 year gap is a LONG amount of appearances. It's not like it hasnt happened before though - the only reason Neighbor Jones was brought back by Carl Barks was due to a simple fan letter. This is a guess, but maybe thats the reason for Kildare. I'm also noting that his second appearance was in Scarpa's "Paperolimpadi/Olympics Saga" where he seems to have brought back nearly every last one of his many creations. Theres always the possibility that he didnt really have many ideas for the character until he reused him the second time around.

...actually, upon looking at Inducks further, outside of a scant few stories, it seems that while Scarpa CREATED him, other writers and artists used him far more often which isnt so unusual when you compare it to other characters who have undergone the same treatment.

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.

Thats the joy about non-rigid continuity. Years from now an artist or writer who has read both stories can come along and intertwine the two so that both are correct. What if said future writer establishes that Rockerduck had squandered most of his inherited fortune (link to Rosa) and years later scammed Scrooge out of most of his in said golf game (DeVita)? I'm not saying it WILL happen, I'm just saying that its a possibility that negates neither story. Thats a good example of being not totally bound by silly rigid continuity and the nice thing about Disney comics - said continuity is fluid.

Personally I'm rather interested in that story. John Rockerduck is still a new character to me, so that sounds pretty neat.

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 have but its been years. The story was called "Secrets" and was printed in the very final issue of Gladstone's Uncle Scrooge book. As I recall it was one of Mr. Van Horns more interesting stories because he doesnt usually go out of his way to establish characters and provide backstory on them or expand on current ones the way Rosa does for Scrooge. I'll have to see if I can find my copy of it sooner or later.

As far as differences between he and Gus - yes. While Gus is indeed lazy and scatterbrained, he's also redeemable in the sense that he isnt a complete and total SPONGE, will do work with his family, and his family likes being around him. My personal outlook on this is that when Rumpus was introduced, notice that as opposed to Gus who is lazy BUT welcomed, half the Duck family wanted nothing to do with Rumpus at all, basically because he's Gus on OVERLOAD. Rumpus knows this and willingly abuses his laziness to absurd extremes that would otherwise make Gus TOTALLY out of character. However - where Rumpus becomes slightly more complex IMO is that of all the characters who have taken to Rumpus, Scrooge has if only because he's his brother and the two are trying to get to know each other (albeit in that comical Van Horn sense). So its sort of like Donald is to Gus what Scrooge is to Rumpus, but with a twist.

Its something I can sort of relate to myself, having several half-brothers and sisters whom I have been estranged from.

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.

I only really used Douglas as an example. The two stories that I read were both by Lars Jensen and seemed pretty fun (a little more decent than usual Egmont stuff, but then again I think Lars Jensen is a more decent writer as of recent than most who have come out of Egmont.) From what I understand he was created as a throwaway character way back in '81 and Lars kind of picked up on him and adapted him as his own. The way I see it - He's pretty much Scrooge's worst qualities - the penny pinching, the abrasiveness towards his nephews, the over engorged work ethic - but put to an absurdist extreme so that he's almost an insufferable @$$hole by comparison. And then of course there's the twist to the formula that no matter how much like Scrooge he is, he SUCKS when it comes to making and finding money. I didnt say he was the best character, but I just note him as an example more than anything else.


I have never understood why people would think like this. Why would they limit their own reading pleasure? They try to turn works of fiction, in which anything can happen, into th real world. Wasn't fiction designed so we could escape the real world from time to time?

Because people are stupid and stupid people like having every single teeny tiny minute detail spoon fed to them so they can understand it better.

I'm feeling sarcastic today! :)

One reasoning I heard somewhere, is Egmont thinks the Duck universe already has Gyro, so Ludwig is not a neccesary character. This may've been true if the Ludwig from the comics was the same as the Ludwig from the cartoons. In the cartoons, he's an inventor like Gyro, but in the comics, he's a professor, who's an expert on any terrain you can think of.

It sucks that others are deprived of telling good stories with good characters and good concepts because other writers couldnt be bothered to get it right before. Personally I have ALWAYS loved Ludwig and it really sucks that he's AWOL. :(
WB
Member
 
Posts: 40
Joined: Mon May 01, 2006 10:29 am

Postby Rockerduck » Mon Aug 07, 2006 11:35 pm

WB wrote:Bridgitta bring the concept of unrequited love to the table that doesnt make it cliche. Because of this it makes her more like a VERY CLOSE family friend who often pines for Scrooge as opposed to Goldie whom Scrooge pines for but can never drop his guard to have.

I'm rather curious as to whether a story has been done that features Bridgitta and Goldie actually meeting and if so, whether it would do the concept of the two women justice.

Well, in my opinion there is not a romance going on between Scrooge and Goldie, nor did this happen in the past, nor will it happen in the future. That also mean that, according to me, there is no 'pining' or yearning for love between the two of them.

I used to think there was, after I had read the Rosa-stories which feature Goldie. Sure, they're quite entertaining (up to a point) and it's a new twist on familiar characters, but I didn't see any romance in Barks' original 'Back to the Klondike' at all. It was Daniel who pointed this out to me. At first I denied his claims, but then I re-read the story as if I had never read Rosa's interpretations, just looking at the original Barks art. It was like I had experienced a totally different story.

Note in the flashback scène, how Goldie is attracked to the golden nugget, and not to Scrooge. Note how she puts something in his coffee, while trying to get to know where Scrooge's claim is. Note how she robs Scrooge of his gold and leaves him somewhere outside Dawson. Note how Scrooge is furious when he comes back to get his gold back, and then kidnaps Goldie. Although these are 'just' comic book characters, Scrooge is breaking the law here. Not only does he kidnap Goldie, he also forces her to work for him at his claim. At the end, Goldie cries about her torn dress. When Scrooges gives her some money, she throws it in his face and walks away. Although she has worked so hard for so long, she'd rather not take the money from Scrooge. That's how disgusted she is by him. Is that love?

And then skip to the part where Scrooge and his nephews have Goldie surrounded at Scrooge's old claim. One of the three nephews tells Goldie their uncle Scrooge is coming. Notice how Goldie is terrified. She's in tears: she believes Scrooge will take everything from her. If there indeed had been a romance in the past, don't you think she would've been happy? Right after freaking out, she decides to put on her old dress, to look as nice as she can. Isn't that just a trick to seduce Scrooge, hoping he will have mercy with her? Scrooge is a little shy when he sees Goldie again, and he blushes. But already in the next panel, he's hard as a rock again. If you look at how Goldie and Scrooge are standing there, blushing and shuffeling, in just that one panel, then I can't draw another conclusion that *maybe*, if you interpretet it *very* widely, there could've been affection between the two of them. But if you look at them, standing there like two high school kids who don't want to admit they feel something, I know there's nothing more than that (and even that I don't believe, but I said it for the sake of the argument), and certainly not what Rosa implies with his comments on the month Scrooge and Goldie spent in White Agony Creek, including his "melting snow" on the rooftop and his "ooooh baby!".

Therefore, I think there shouldn't be a story which combines Goldie and Brigitta, because I believe they don't share ant interest in Scrooge. Brigitta loves Scrooge, yes, but Scrooge doesn't love her. And Goldie... I think she couldn't care less about Scrooge. So I see no point in havng her meet Brigitta.

But please not that these are only and entirely my own opinions, and I'm not trying to force them upon anybody.

WB wrote:[Kildare Coot]A 20 year gap is a LONG amount of appearances. It's not like it hasnt happened before though - the only reason Neighbor Jones was brought back by Carl Barks was due to a simple fan letter. This is a guess, but maybe thats the reason for Kildare.

That's indeed a very logical explanation. Too bad Scarpa isn't around anymore to ask him. I'm beginning to appreciate him more and more (even more than I already did). He added a lot of characters to the cast, and he did so many incredibly long adventure stories, often where the Ducks are playing a role in historical tellings.

WB wrote:I'm also noting that his [Kildare] second appearance was in Scarpa's "Paperolimpadi/Olympics Saga" where he seems to have brought back nearly every last one of his many creations. Theres always the possibility that he didnt really have many ideas for the character until he reused him the second time around.

Coïncidentally, I bought the German pocket book with this story just over a week ago. When you're living in The Netherlands and you are a collector, you have to help yourself. ;) When I've read it, I can give you my opinion on it if you'd like, or maybe provide more information about Kildare.

What puzzles me, is why Scarpa brought back Kildare after having only had one appearance more than 20 years ago. The readers didn't know Kildare, unless they were in their thirties and had read that Kildare-story 20 years ago.

WB wrote:...actually, upon looking at Inducks further, outside of a scant few stories, it seems that while Scarpa CREATED him, other writers and artists used him far more often which isnt so unusual when you compare it to other characters who have undergone the same treatment.

The first time I noticed Kildare was indeed not in a Scarpa story, but one done by Lara Molinari. Remember Rockerduck? After being used only once by Barks, he was used in Italy frequently as a villain instead of Flintheart Glomgold.

WB wrote:Thats the joy about non-rigid continuity. Years from now an artist or writer who has read both stories can come along and intertwine the two so that both are correct. What if said future writer establishes that Rockerduck had squandered most of his inherited fortune (link to Rosa) and years later scammed Scrooge out of most of his in said golf game (DeVita)? I'm not saying it WILL happen, I'm just saying that its a possibility that negates neither story. Thats a good example of being not totally bound by silly rigid continuity and the nice thing about Disney comics - said continuity is fluid.

But still, the question appears to me: why would anybody want to do that? Why should that be important, or relevant? You offer a good explanation to combine both histories, but I don't see the importance of doing something like that.

Also, I've personally done away with DeVita's/Penna's vision, because I think it's out-of-character for Scrooge to put in such an incredible amount of money in a bet. Half his fortune is an enormous, gigantic, incredible, huge amount of money. I can't imagine that much money, let alone placing it in a bet and then losing it to a rival. Imagine Rockerduck becoming wealthy at Scrooge's cost. I prefer Rosa's version: Howard Rockerduck, John's father, gave Scrooge the lessons he needed to become a succesful golddigger, thus creating the ironic situation that is was John's father who is for a big part responsible for Scrooge being richer than John.

WB wrote:[Story in which Rumpus finds out]I have but its been years. The story was called "Secrets" and was printed in the very final issue of Gladstone's Uncle Scrooge book. As I recall it was one of Mr. Van Horns more interesting stories because he doesnt usually go out of his way to establish characters and provide backstory on them or expand on current ones the way Rosa does for Scrooge. I'll have to see if I can find my copy of it sooner or later.

Somehow, everybody always mixes this up. (No offence ;)) In 'Secrets', not Rumpus finds out, but Scrooge's nephews Huey, Duey and Louie. Scrooge tells them at the end of the story, and he warns them: if Rumpus ever will find out, he will never be able to get rid of him.

In a later story, Travails, Rumpus himself finds out. I'm curious to know what his reaction was, and what Scrooge's reaction to that was.

WB wrote:As far as differences between he and Gus - yes. While Gus is indeed lazy and scatterbrained, he's also redeemable in the sense that he isnt a complete and total SPONGE, will do work with his family, and his family likes being around him. My personal outlook on this is that when Rumpus was introduced, notice that as opposed to Gus who is lazy BUT welcomed, half the Duck family wanted nothing to do with Rumpus at all, basically because he's Gus on OVERLOAD. Rumpus knows this and willingly abuses his laziness to absurd extremes that would otherwise make Gus TOTALLY out of character.

Of course, that's it! :) Why didn't I see that for myself? You're absolutely right.

However, I still think there are not that many possibilities with this character. Although there's one story in which Rumpus and Magica de Spell are in love. I'd like to see that!: http://coa.inducks.org/story.php/x/D+2000-145//_

WB wrote:However - where Rumpus becomes slightly more complex IMO is that of all the characters who have taken to Rumpus, Scrooge has if only because he's his brother and the two are trying to get to know each other (albeit in that comical Van Horn sense). So its sort of like Donald is to Gus what Scrooge is to Rumpus, but with a twist.

I must admit, that sounds interesting.

WB wrote:[Douglas McDuck]The way I see it - He's pretty much Scrooge's worst qualities - the penny pinching, the abrasiveness towards his nephews, the over engorged work ethic - but put to an absurdist extreme so that he's almost an insufferable @$$hole by comparison. And then of course there's the twist to the formula that no matter how much like Scrooge he is, he SUCKS when it comes to making and finding money. I didnt say he was the best character, but I just note him as an example more than anything else.

The concept sounds very interesting, but it seems to me such a character would be suitable for maybe one of two stories. So I guess the writers were right when treating him as a throw-away character.

The way I tend to dismiss these characters so quickly, is because I think we've reached the point where there are so many additions to the family, we don't really *need* any more. You can do enough with only the Barks-characters, but there are also wonderful characters like Brigitta, Fethry, Ludwig and older ones like Dickie, Umperio Bogarto, OK Quack ... and there are additionals like Sonny Seagull and Mr. Phelps, Rumpus, Kildare and also Bum Bum Ghigno

If you don't know all of these characters, you can look them up here.

Isn't it too much?

WB wrote:[Ludwig is dead, according to Egmont]It sucks that others are deprived of telling good stories with good characters and good concepts because other writers couldnt be bothered to get it right before. Personally I have ALWAYS loved Ludwig and it really sucks that he's AWOL. :(

I don't really understand why you say other writers didn't got it 'right' before. The reason Ludwig can't be used at Egmont isn't because of writers screwing up, but because they think he's the same as Gyro. If it's anybody's fault, it's Byron Erickson, who is the chief editor at Egmont, and not just (a handful of) artists.
Rockerduck
Member
 
Posts: 262
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 6:40 pm

Postby Robb_K » Wed Aug 09, 2006 5:22 pm

As a writer/storyboarder, I say, the more family members and different characters, the better. If I want to "invent" a new character that I'd like in a story, I would hope to be able to do so. It's bad enough that I've already tasted the hard lash of censurship by writing "History of McDuck or Duck family" stories that clashed with Rosa's histories - so were rejected. I wouldn't want to be restricted to a set "pantheon" or tablette of characters.
Robb_K
Member
 
Posts: 444
Joined: Thu Apr 13, 2006 2:35 pm

Postby Doctor Witchie Britchie » Thu Aug 10, 2006 11:33 pm

I agree with Robb; it's nice to have the feeling that the Duck family isn't a closed circle, but that some genius like Barks or Scarpa or Van Horn can always invent a brother or cousin or uncle or nephew for one of the Ducks, if he thinks of a funny personality. The more, the merrier.
Doctor Witchie Britchie
Member
 
Posts: 193
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 2:51 pm

Postby Rockerduck » Thu Aug 10, 2006 11:56 pm

I agree every artist should be able to create new family members for Donald. I just wondered if they're really neccesary. We've already got so many of them. We even got family members that can't be used anymore, unfortunatly (Moby Duck can't be used anymore, because he's politically uncorrect, and Ludwig is dead according to Egmont).
Rockerduck
Member
 
Posts: 262
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 6:40 pm

Postby Robb_K » Mon Aug 14, 2006 11:30 am

Rockerduck wrote:I agree every artist should be able to create new family members for Donald. I just wondered if they're really neccesary. We've already got so many of them. We even got family members that can't be used anymore, unfortunatly (Moby Duck can't be used anymore, because he's politically uncorrect, and Ludwig is dead according to Egmont).

What if I need a cousin who is in a circus, or is a magician, or has some other vocation or attribute that the current relatives don't have? Do I pretend that Gus Goose got a job in a circus, or learned magic. NO! The story would be rejected, because it clashes with his known character qualities. Can I use Feathery? NO! he#s to scatterbrained, and not conniving enough, or intelligent enough. Do I have to say that Cousin Cuthbirt Coot, or Cousin Whitewater changed careers and suddenly got more intelligent or egotistical? NO! I need the relative with the proper characteristics for the particular story (just as Barks did, or Van Horn did with Scrooge's lazy, shiftless brother (?)). The current group of relatives does NOT contain every character we need (by a LONGSHOT)!
Robb_K
Member
 
Posts: 444
Joined: Thu Apr 13, 2006 2:35 pm

Postby Rockerduck » Mon Aug 14, 2006 4:55 pm

Again: I'm by no means saying you shouldn't create new characters. If it makes for a good story: please, go ahead. By the way, it seems we are talking about two different kind of characters. It seems like you're talking about one-shot characters. I was thinking of recurring characters.
Rockerduck
Member
 
Posts: 262
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 6:40 pm

Postby Robb_K » Fri Aug 18, 2006 1:06 pm

Rockerduck wrote:Again: I'm by no means saying you shouldn't create new characters. If it makes for a good story: please, go ahead. By the way, it seems we are talking about two different kind of characters. It seems like you're talking about one-shot characters. I was thinking of recurring characters.

I'm sure that I'm talking about BOTH one shot characters, just needed for a story, AND Duck relatives that can be used over and over. I wrote a story in which Donald has a cousin who is a shiftless, dishonest, scheming trickster, who is a clown in a traveling circus. He stays with Donald for a week and tries to pull the wool over the eyes of Donald's nephews, so they idolise him, and think Donald should be more like him.
He gets them free tickets to the circus, and lets them come "backstage" and watch the acts practise. In the end, the nephews see that this cousin was a lier, and also was an anti-hero instead of someone to look up to.

Despite the fact that he was tailored for that story, and even though he was seen to be a bad person, I think it might be nice for him to be used several more times (sparingly-but here and there over the years).The same is true for various other relatives. I don't mean to imply that we should have hundreds of recurring relatives who get together for Christmas and clutter up giant panels. I just think that it would be interesting to use Ludwig when a professor or brains-related egotist is needed, and not say he's "identical to Gyro". I'd like to not use Gladstone every time a rival for Donald, or thorn in his side is needed. He needs some other thorns in his side, and relatives that make him look better by comparison, and some that make him look worse. The difference between using non-Ducks for such purposes and using relatives, is great. Most social people are STUCK HAVING to deal with (and often put up-house) relatives, and also clean up their physical and figurative messes. THAT's a plot element we can't get using non-relatives, and that gets boring when we keep using the same relative for the same given purpose.

Choice and variation are good. In addition, I think adding to the cast of The Duck Family adds richness to The History of Duckburg, Duck County, and Calisota, and fills out the setting for Donald,l a bit more. There are many fans who want to know more about that family.

As for me, I want to see more family members react with Donald and Scrooge and HDL, and want to see more of the Geography of their World, learn more about their customs and see more of the history.
Robb_K
Member
 
Posts: 444
Joined: Thu Apr 13, 2006 2:35 pm

Postby Daniel73 » Tue Sep 26, 2006 8:27 pm

A Scrooge woman who I find interesting is Belle Duck:

- - - - - - - - - -

Belle appeared in comics in the 1960's in stories by Dick Kinney.

She and Scrooge apparently have a long history together. Belle appears to still have feelings for Scrooge, although he has no romantic interest in her. It is implied that this was not always the case, however. Belle sometimes threatens to reveal an embarassing secret from the past if Scrooge won't pay for repairs to her old riverboat, "The Gilded Lily". Belle gives cruises on the Tulebug River in Duckburg in her riverboat.

As her name suggests, Belle is from the South, where she was once well-to-do.

Her arch-nemesis is Captain Annie, who runs another tourist boat on the Tulebug River, called "The Flying Dutchman". Belle is a much better sailor than Annie.


http://www.sullivanet.com/duckburg/loves/belle.htm

- - - - - - - - - -

I think the "embarassing secret from the past" is interesting. Belle looks like just a nice lady, but meanwhile she has power over Scrooge. In that way she reminds a bit of Barks's miss Penny Wise (WDC 164). I think that Scrooge having at least one secret weakness, adds a lot to his character.
Apparently, Scrooge is not just worried about his money, but also about his image. Or maybe a combination of money and image, by fearing that people won't buy Scrooge products anymore after hearing the news.
Image
Daniel73
Member
 
Posts: 313
Joined: Fri Jun 02, 2006 4:40 pm
Location: Netherlands


Return to Disney characters

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests

cron