William Van Horn wrote:Boohooohhooooo......
Can I a least say 'goodbye', mister Egg?
WB wrote:Hi Mr. Van Horn! I must say yet again that I love your work. I hope the previous insult by Egg doesnt drive you away. It's always nice IMO to see creators give input on thier work and being stateside with the Disney material I've discovered that its not often to find a place to discuss the comic books I've grown up with since childhood where the language isnt all something I don't really know. ^^;;
WB wrote:No one has to always agree with the other person, and maybe I probably read it the wrong way as I'm just a newbie (maybe lost in translation?) but your phrasing of this comes off as more than just a wee bit rude.
WB wrote:A) How in the world did he screw up anything? To say that makes little or no sense. He did not change or rewrite the fundamental aspects of the story. He did not write any of the characters out of character, and he did not take the story (which is known as far as I've seen by people to be the only really apocryphal story that Barks has done in terms of continuity) and poo-poo on it.
WB wrote:Having read the story both with (recent Gemstone reprint) and without (old Gemstone reprint)his framing sequence, I kinda have to say that the framing sequence made it make sense (at least in my perspective) before Rosa's non-inception of it in Life and Times had even come to play.
WB wrote:the way I see it, the framing sequence neither makes the story any more valid or invalid than it standing own its own or chosen to be left out of LaT. Its like one of those tall tales that can be interpreted any way you want it and IMO thats a creative way to go about it.
WB wrote:What do you mean by that? Cause the way it reads it seems like you're saying that if anyone talks ill of anything Barks that isn't anything but "pure like" then you'll flame them. (Not to mention it makes you come off a wee bit obsessed)
WB wrote:Again - maybe I'm wrong and your statement is probably lost in translation a bit, but if that is indeed true (at the risk of coming off a bit strong) I think you're being somewhat way too extreme.
WB wrote:I'm not scared. In my professional years with Sonic I've dealt with crazy bonkers fans and tons of weird furries during my career that would make anybody all kinds of crazy. I've seen faaaaaaar worse. ^__^
WB wrote:He's pretty much assumed the mantle of successor of the Donald Duck 10 pager in many people's eyes and many people's opinion brings something to the table that has never been there before. But like I said earlier, your mileage may vary.
WB wrote:Sometimes when you end up "expelling everybody outside the city walls", you end up finding that you're the only one left, both alone and unwanted, inside the city.
WB wrote:Egg wrote:just to please some silly brainless feelingless readers and editors,
This one statement shows me that you don't seem to know much of anything about the comic book process and how it works.
WB wrote:See - your editors give you a job. They ask you to do something. You do it. You don't do your own thing, defy them vehemently, or raise a stink about it. You have every right to disagree and present your own case and if you can convince the editor that this way isnt the best way to go then better for all parties. Sometimes you hit creative stumbling blocks but in the end its all about learning to work with people and doing your job.
clutchy Egg wrote:... no far no one has gone so far ...
WB wrote:So those editors that you call brainless do what they do for a reason. That does not mean that they are always right (I've worked with editors before that make something as simple as "okaying a framing sequence" seem like quantum physics) but I'm certain that even the oft revered Barks has had to deal with changes that were both GOOD (let's say the rewrite of Delivery Dillema, a story thats been said he didnt originally write that he made changes too) and BAD (the incredibly asinine and stupid idea of square block lettering by Gold Key/Whitman around the time of late 60's/70's)
WB wrote:I'm not trying to be condescending - excuse that if it looks that way - but understand the creative process of both sides past and present before you mock it, and learn how to lighten up a bit and not take everything so mad seriously.
WB wrote:Just my opinion mind you.
Rockerduck wrote:Aaaah, I see you met Egg. Yes, he's obsessed with Barks.
Rockerduck wrote:Yes, it is dangerous to say something negative about Barks or his work. Do not criticise him. Always praise Barks and never argue with Egg. It's for your own safety.
Rockerduck wrote:[Bill Watterson] He fought for a new Sunday Strip-format, the possibility to take sabbaticals, and most important, not having to exploit his creations to commercialism.
Robb_K wrote:According to others on this thread, it's better for role-playing to keep the true identities of the "characters" unknown!
Robb_K wrote:However, it's nice to see that the International Forum is growing in International membership. I'm sure that will add a bit more flavour to the discussions.
Doctor Witchie Britchie wrote:I don't hold the Magic Hourglass framing sequence against Van Horn--if he had done it someone else would have anyway; it wasn't his idea.
Doctor Witchie Britchie wrote:Mr. Van Horn shows that he respects the Barks tradition by crafting all his stories entirely on his own and not piggybacking on Barks' work.
Doctor Witchie Britchie wrote:He still has my highest respect as a writer and artist.
Doctor Witchie Britchie wrote:And I still respect Egg, too, cantankerous as he can be (just kidding!)
Egg wrote:William Van Horn wrote:Boohooohhooooo......
Can I a least say 'goodbye', mister Egg?
Egg is so ferocious, creators won't even dare to say goodbye. Egg wants discussions! Good sides, bad sides. Scientifically and emotionally. Heart and soul. Everything. Cluthy Egg loves discussing so much, that most people run away as soon as he starts writing. (sigh! how come?)WB wrote:Hi Mr. Van Horn! I must say yet again that I love your work. I hope the previous insult by Egg doesnt drive you away. It's always nice IMO to see creators give input on thier work and being stateside with the Disney material I've discovered that its not often to find a place to discuss the comic books I've grown up with since childhood where the language isnt all something I don't really know. ^^;;
Egg is not convinced William Van Horn is really William Van Horn. Otherwise Egg would have run away to Farawaystan, as fast as his shell can roll.WB wrote:No one has to always agree with the other person, and maybe I probably read it the wrong way as I'm just a newbie (maybe lost in translation?) but your phrasing of this comes off as more than just a wee bit rude.
Egg is exaggerating. It's a retorical question. Egg is just a bit disturbed by the idea of the frame-story. To my knowledge, no far no one has gone so far as to reverse engineer a Barks classic to make it compatible with a frame-work. Not even Don Rosa. I think Van Horn shouldn't have lend himself for that. Barks's stories are good as they are.
As the truth is too painful I just try to be a bit funny about it. What else can we Barks Lovers do?WB wrote:A) How in the world did he screw up anything? To say that makes little or no sense. He did not change or rewrite the fundamental aspects of the story. He did not write any of the characters out of character, and he did not take the story (which is known as far as I've seen by people to be the only really apocryphal story that Barks has done in terms of continuity) and poo-poo on it.
The description "really apocryphal story that Barks has done in terms of continuity" is nonsense. Barks has made a lot of stories with good luck charms. So 'The Magic Hourglass' is canon as canon can be.
I really miss Dutch contributor Keessie on this. He's very good in explaining Barks's continuity.
Exactly for this reason I'm worried about Gemstone being so odd. Is this going to be a habit? They change a Barks classic to their view, hiring a Barks-influence artist, to reverse engineer a Barks classic to their will, suggesting it's a correction. That's rude. A black page in Barks history.
'The Magic Hourglass' stands on its own for more than 50 years. It has been published as a classic around the world. And now some minority decides it should be retold their way. Why? What were they thinking?WB wrote:Having read the story both with (recent Gemstone reprint) and without (old Gemstone reprint)his framing sequence, I kinda have to say that the framing sequence made it make sense (at least in my perspective) before Rosa's non-inception of it in Life and Times had even come to play.
Can you explain this? I think the story fits because Scrooge gets so upset he gets uncertain. And so he gets unlucky, because his business thoughts are distracted.
Also, Scrooge is shown being superstitious in multible Barks stories. Superstition can be seen in a lot of Barks stories. In a way, Gladstone's luck could be superstition, too.WB wrote:the way I see it, the framing sequence neither makes the story any more valid or invalid than it standing own its own or chosen to be left out of LaT. Its like one of those tall tales that can be interpreted any way you want it and IMO thats a creative way to go about it.
Can someone submit scans? Can they be found on internet somewhere?WB wrote:What do you mean by that? Cause the way it reads it seems like you're saying that if anyone talks ill of anything Barks that isn't anything but "pure like" then you'll flame them. (Not to mention it makes you come off a wee bit obsessed)
When trying to get an opinion across, it gets clearer when it's put in black and white. Especially when writing in a foreign language, it's difficult to put exactly the right words down, so that's why I just come up with a clear statement that can be discussed.WB wrote:Again - maybe I'm wrong and your statement is probably lost in translation a bit, but if that is indeed true (at the risk of coming off a bit strong) I think you're being somewhat way too extreme.
Just to get theoretical: What would be wrong with an extreme opinion on the matter?WB wrote:I'm not scared. In my professional years with Sonic I've dealt with crazy bonkers fans and tons of weird furries during my career that would make anybody all kinds of crazy. I've seen faaaaaaar worse. ^__^
Sonic?
Ha! I don't believe you've seen far worse. I'm the world's biggest Egg. And I want to stay that way!WB wrote:He's pretty much assumed the mantle of successor of the Donald Duck 10 pager in many people's eyes and many people's opinion brings something to the table that has never been there before. But like I said earlier, your mileage may vary.
Does Barks have any successor? I think most Barks-imitating artists use tricks to look that way. Barks was Barks all by himself. That's a principal difference.
Maybe they could be called "Barks adopters", or something like that?WB wrote:Sometimes when you end up "expelling everybody outside the city walls", you end up finding that you're the only one left, both alone and unwanted, inside the city.
If everyone has left, I can finally discuss!WB wrote:Egg wrote:just to please some silly brainless feelingless readers and editors,
This one statement shows me that you don't seem to know much of anything about the comic book process and how it works.
Are we going to bet on this? Egg knows enough about production processes to know that some people just do whatever they like, without much thought behind it.
Of course I'm exaggerating by calling them brainless, but I do think that editors sometimes do their very best to be seen that way. There are many examples of screwed-up stories just because some editor makes a silly mistake.WB wrote:See - your editors give you a job. They ask you to do something. You do it. You don't do your own thing, defy them vehemently, or raise a stink about it. You have every right to disagree and present your own case and if you can convince the editor that this way isnt the best way to go then better for all parties. Sometimes you hit creative stumbling blocks but in the end its all about learning to work with people and doing your job.
That's true. But I wonder if William Van Horn doesn't have enough credits to bow out of the honour. But I also think that about other artists, for example when the Dutch editor decided to use software-balloons. Can't they protest?
Doctor Witchie Britchie wrote:Though I've never known Van Horn to throw his weight about like Rosa--which is another reason I like him. He seems to be a laid-back, unassuming sort.
Rockerduck wrote:I always just quote a person, and then erase the text I don't need (the portion of the text I'm not going to respond to).
Doctor Witchie Britchie wrote:Errr--what's the idea of putting these Rosa pages on the William Van Horn thread? It seems to me that such an off-topic and out-of-left-field message could be considered, well...trolling.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests