Rockerduck wrote:This looks like an attack a Daniel's posts. What do you have against long posts and what is not about Disney comics, according to you?
I see it as just criticism. I hope that the other topic can be split up by the maintainer, as it is a heavy example of getting off-topic. The fact that I'm writing long drafts there, only makes it worse. So, WB's comment is correct. Even if it were an attack.
Some people rather discuss the comics. Others are interesting in the boring side of comics: production process, backstage matters, interviews, articles, backbiting, etc. Some go for both options, and are then barely able to follow either possibility.
ramapith wrote:Daniel wrote:Barks's 'Race to the South Seas' is once again the Jippes-version. (According to COA.)
Um, not quite. I indexed the issue for COA, and notice what I mentioned: "restored from Jippes reink, with much of original Barks art reinstated."
I've only looked at the contents index, where I saw Jippes' name being credited. However, the line "restored from Jippes reink, with much of original Barks art reinstated" doesn't add much to that for me, as it's still based on Jippes's version. I remember Jippes telling me at a Dutch convention in autumn 1991, that he (in the 1970s) worked from bad xeroxes on which mostly only the ducks could be seen.
Since then and with internet, clear copies of the original March of Comics can be obtained. So, why keep on working with something that Jippes made in the ancient 1970s?
ramapith wrote:We managed to decolor a large amount of the original Barks character art from both the original Dell comic and a very crisp 1970s French reprint; then we electronically laid it into the panels over the Jippes-drawn backgrounds. The result is still not pure Barks, but has much more of Barks than any other modern edition. Comparing the ducks' faces in particular will immediately let you notice the difference.
Jos Beekman of the Dutch editor told McDuck some similar story about restoring and reformatting an old give-away Wolf story in a recent Donald Duck weekly.
Why do editors make such expensive efforts in faking something that they just could reprint as a facsimile version? Why bother about the original colouring? Just colour-xerox it into the issue. That would have been a cheap solution and a real scoop. People would really have had the original 'Race to the South Seas'. (And 'Darkest Africa', etc. etc.)
In the Netherlands and I believe in other European countries there are facsimile books compiling old years of comics. This way people can now buy complete, scanned reprints of the Dutch weeklies of 1952-1956, and the series seems to be a succes.
As far as I know, the only problem about some stories, is that editors don't like the original colouring. But if it was good then, then why is it so bad now? 'Race to the South Seas' is a unique story that is worth the authentic view.
ramapith wrote:[Gemstone] And we've published other Hubbard-drawn Fethry stories recently, too.
Other Hubbard-drawn Fethry stories in the USA? Why didn't anyone tell me? No wonder I get grumpy, when no one tells me good news.
ramapith wrote:Hubbard didn't use Xerography, by the way—I inspected some original art from a Hubbard 1960s story at Disney awhile ago, and it showed the inking to be standard brushwork with real ink.
Interesting. Could Al Hubbard's style be an imitation of the then-modern Xerography? Or is it just coincidence?