Duckfan van Down Under schreef:Wat ik weet:
Donald/Dumbella geb. 1920
Neefjes geb. 1940
Don Rosa schreef:Other dates are exact when there was a need to be, otherwise I didn't get fancy and I just used 5 year increments, 1920, 1925, 1930 and so on. (I wouldn't say 1921 if there was no specific reason to since I knew I might still change a date here or there someday for some reason.
Duckfan van Down Under schreef:Nog iets wat niet klopt: In Lo$ 12 zegt Donald dat hij in 1930 jonger was dan de neefjes.
1930-1920= 10 jaar
1947-1940= 7 jaar
Duckfan van Down Under schreef:Nee hoor, ze waren te lastig en van de dokter moest ze een paar weken rust nemen.
Duckfan van Down Under schreef:In een krantenstrip van Taliaferro gaan ze ook gewoon weer naar huis.
Rockerduck schreef:Michiel, je bent niet alleen een stamboomvorser maar ook een leeftijds/dialogen/Rosa-vorser.
Duckfan van Down Under schreef:In een Barks-verhaal uit 1949 geloven de neefjes nog in de kerstman. Dit geldt ook voor Puk en Max in de pockets. Dus ze kunnen nooit ouder zijn dan 10 jaar.
Michiel P schreef:In Rosa's "The Incredible Shrinking Tightwad" wordt die straal opnieuw gebruikt, maar Rosa vergeet dat er twéé machines nodig zijn. Hij tekent alleen de zender en vergeet de ontvanger. Dat is slordig.
Michiel P schreef:Don, I spotted a glaring mistake in your use of the atom subtractor in "The Incredible Shrinking Tightwad". The atom subtractor in Barks' "Billions in the Hole" consists of TWO separate devices, a sender and a receiver. To shrink an object, it must be placed BETWEEN those two contraptions. But in your story, you only make use of the sender. That's not the way it's supposed to work. Is this a goof or did you change this on purpose?
What was the reason that you wanted to do this story? Did you want to make a follow-up to "Billions in the Hole" or would you have done a shrinking story anyway, even without a Barks precedent?
Don Rosa schreef:Michiel P schreef:I spotted a glaring mistake in your use of the atom subtractor in "The Incredible Shrinking Tightwad".
Either your translator ignored the script, or you are not reading carefully.Michiel P schreef:The atom subtractor in Barks' "Billions in the Hole" consists of TWO separate devices, a sender and a receiver. To shrink an object, it must be placed BETWEEN those two contraptions. But in your story, you only make use of the sender. That's not the way it's supposed to work.
That's correct. But also in Barks' original story the items that are shrunk did not continue to shrink into nothingness. Why don't you think I made that error also?
In the early pages of that story, in MY script, as you can see in the American printing of that story, a Nephew asks $crooge why he has the "atom subtractor" in his junk closet. $crooge replies that the secondary receiver unit malfunctioned, and his scientists discovered that, without that unit, shrunken items became unstable and would soon start shrinking again until they disappeared altogether.
This explanation is not in the version you read?
...
I just checked the links you provided, and I'm puzzled as to where those images came from. In my script, and in the American printing in WDC&S #611-612, $crooge gives the full & correct explanation on page 3, panel 4. But that's not the same as what I see in that link. Where did that version appear?
I'll keep answering these "I found an error" messages, if you wish. But why is this such a sport?Michiel P schreef:What was the reason that you wanted to do this story? Did you want to make a follow-up to "Billions in the Hole" or would you have done a shrinking story anyway, even without a Barks precedent?
I wanted to do a Duck version of THE INCREDIBLE SHRINKING MAN, but I also like to tie my stories into the stories I grew up with whenever I can. So, I would have done that story in any case -- tying it to "Billions in the Hole" simply made it more fun for me, and hopefully more fun for other Barks fans.
Michiel P schreef:Thanks for your answer, Don.Don Rosa schreef:But also in Barks' original story the items that are shrunk did not continue to shrink into nothingness. Why don't you think I made that error also?
Because that part is still explained in your dialogue. The part about the receiver unit is missing, apparently.Don Rosa schreef:I just checked the links you provided, and I'm puzzled as to where those images came from. [...] Where did that version appear?
It must be from US #359, the only American edition of the *complete* 25-page version of that story.
http://coa.inducks.org/issue.php?c=us/US++359#cDon Rosa schreef:$crooge replies that the secondary receiver unit malfunctioned, and his scientists discovered that, without that unit, shrunken items became unstable and would soon start shrinking again until they disappeared altogether.
I guess you got rid of that second unit on purpose, to make it easier to use the shrinking ray in your story? How would the nephews know where to place the receiving unit, when they didn't know where their uncles were in the crowd?Don Rosa schreef:I'll keep answering these "I found an error" messages, if you wish. But why is this such a sport?
I assume it's such a sport because of your own insistence on how you made sure your sequels are 100% in line with Barks' originals. This encourages people to read those Barks classics to check that for themselves. Perceived errors are naturally reported back to you.
Don Rosa schreef:Michiel P schreef:I guess you got rid of that second unit on purpose, to make it easier to use the shrinking ray in your story?
Exactly. I wanted the Ducks to keep shrinking, so I used the Barks shrinking machine but I needed a reason for it to not function exactly as before.Michiel P schreef:How would the nephews know where to place the receiving unit, when they didn't know where their uncles were in the crowd?
See the bottom of page 22. When the Nephews aim the ray at the entire crowd, one explains to the policeman that they know the Beagle Boys (with their shrunken Uncles) are hiding somewhere in the crowd, and the reversal-beam will only have an effect on something already shrinking from the previous beam, so everyone and everything else was safe from any harmful effects.
Now... don't ask me how they know the beam is safe to everyone else. I just needed them to know that. So they did. It's nice how that sometimes works out!
But... perhaps you were not asking me a question... you were simply giving another reason why the receiving unit would not be usable in my plot? If so, you are right again!Michiel P schreef:I assume it's such a sport because of your own insistence on how you made sure your sequels are 100% in line with Barks' originals. This encourages people to read those Barks classics to check that for themselves. Perceived errors are naturally reported back to you.
And that's good -- as I've said, I *want* to find my errors so that I can correct them in future reprints. But I would hope that "I found an error" messages do not dominate this thread or it might seem tedious to forum members.
A few of you may have been around in the late 60's when Marvel Comics was building a huge base of fans, and Stan Lee was receiving so many "I found an error" letters filling his letters-pages that he created the "Mighty Marvel No-Prize" (with what that implied) to award to error-finders.
Michiel P schreef:Don Rosa schreef:But... perhaps you were not asking me a question... you were simply giving another reason why the receiving unit would not be usable in my plot?
Well, more asking if this was another reason for you to get rid of the receiving unit in your story, but yeah. Thanks for your answer!
Daniel73 schreef:Wat vind je nu zelf van dit antwoord?
Daniel73 schreef:Maar waarom zou Dagobert maar de helft van de apparatuur bewaren? Aan de zender alleen heeft hij niets.
Daniel73 schreef:Waarom is de "receiving unit" bijvoorbeeld niet gerepareerd?
Daniel73 schreef:(Simpel: omdat Rosa er vanaf wilde.)
Daniel73 schreef:Volgens mij heeft Rosa hier uiterst makkelijk een ingrediënt van Barks veranderd in iets wat hij nodig heeft voor zijn verhaal.
Daniel73 schreef:En zie hoe makkelijk die zender het verhaal wordt ingevoerd: "Look here, unca Donald! Remember this?" Ineens komt die zender tevoorschijn.
Daniel73 schreef:Waarom wordt de "receiving unit" niet getoond? Dat had Rosa minstens moeten doen, om het verhaal visueel begrijpelijk te houden. Dan stort een verhaal niet zo makkelijk in, als een tekst wordt gewijzigd.
Daniel73 schreef:Welke versie is de echte? [...] Want waarom zou Gemstone zomaar knoeien aan een verhaal van hun grote vriend Rosa?
Daniel73 schreef:Wat zegt de Nederlandse druk van het verhaal?
Michiel P schreef:Daniel73 schreef:Wat zegt de Nederlandse druk van het verhaal?
Niks over een ontvanger, volgens mij. Ik heb het album nu niet bij de hand.
Gebruikers op dit forum: Geen geregistreerde gebruikers. en 9 gasten