Harry wrote:And again, a subject that was interesting initially, ends up in a verbal fight between McDuck's two most frequent posters.
And again, someone is giving attention to "a verbal fight" instead of the many interesting on-topic subjects at McDuck. :rolleyes:
Daniel73 wrote:I helped improving three Mau stories, most notably a story about a violin player. This was terribly bad in script, just using a Barks idea of 'The Master Wrecker' (an insect on paper that changes what's written on the paper) and then a runaway ending... I suggested Mau to go further on the unfinished symphony mentioned on page 1, and provided him an ending about an expert being enthousiastic about Donald's finishing of the piece. I never got any credits for my work for Mau. As if he was Disney himself. Which makes me wonder how much he has used from others helping him out.
I didn't get any credits for my work for Mau in the literal sense. He told me that he agreed with 9 out of 10 points, without telling me which ones. So, principally speaking, my ideas can in fact be simultaneous ideas by someone else. I helped for getting experience and learning how to build up a story, but without explanation and knowledge where and how my proofreading was useful, there wasn't any direction at all.
And I couldn't just look at my xeroxes of the finished scripts, because Mau told me that he would later use some of my ideas when drawing the story. So, in short, I have to figure out what I did - if anything - by looking at the published stories, when even more people have got involved in the production process.
And some corrections which Mau had agreed with, were left unchanged. For example Donald saying the (untranslated) English word "boys" to the nephews, which sounds strange in Dutch.
Another problem was that my ideas would mean a lot of rewriting, as with the violin story. The stories I like were about Donald working for Bel-Sel (published) and one about a certain Kiki Boo (rejected at the time).
One story I disliked was about home videos, which started nice but became messy after the 2nd or 3rd page. (Mau's trademark.)
Mau even went as far as to explain in the script that a videotape was erased but not fully. I told him that this didn't work in comics, as it's too hazy and technical.
Donald was taping something over an earlier film of Daisy's club. And at the television studio someone discovered a remaining of that partly erased film of Daisy's club, and so Daisy's partly erased film got broadcasted.
I asked Mau why he didn't just mention that Donald's film was just placed after Daisy's film, unaware of that earlier film. Just as would happen with optical filming.
Using some videotape-explanation was too far farfetched and it contradicted Mau's 1950s vision. Mau said he'd rather use the world of the 1950s, with telephones still having a dialer instead of buttons.
There was too much contradiction from Mau, which made him unreachable for me in the communication. Very confusing.
Looking at the handful of scripts I can predict one awful Mau-story to appear, about a chicken, a car and a farm. It's a clear example of Mau beginning good, but falling flat on the 3rd page. Disastrous. And then he uses two scenes from Barks stories to keep it going. Horrible. And to my amazement it got accepted.
The more I saw of my idol's work, the more weak working methods I saw. Or worser, the less work methods I saw. Mau even argued that not all the stories needed to be toppers, which I find an ignorant way of working. And it doesn't fit with Barks, in whose footsteps Mau is supposed to be walking.
Also, it didn't match with Mau's vision of Barks being "voedsel voor de geest" (food for the spirit), unless he meant a headache.
My experience with Mau reminded me of an old comment by master Barks, who tried to help and motivate a scripter. In a December 30, 1960 letter to Malcolm Willits, Barks wrote: "I have just finished drawing two ten-page Donalds for Disney Comics that were scripted by an outsider. Editor Chase Craig sent me the two scripts while I was busy drawing the Gyro #3. I welcomed them as a chance to gain some time. Besides, I thought the writer might be some beginner who'd be encouraged by having his stuff used. Well, after days of rewriting and gag-propping on the scripts, all for free, I got them in shape and drew the art. Then, too late, I noticed on the border of one of the sheets the barely legible name of the author. It'd been erased, but I could make out the moniker of an old hack who has been around the game for years, and has never caught onto the duck style. Boy, do I feel let down."
Frank Jonker is a contrast, because Jonker communicates clearly and even gives credits and 50% payment, which made me feel embarrassed as he did most of the work. (Turning text-ideas into script.)