Papersera.net

McDuck:
>>>>>Are you a Orson Wells lover? Are you interested in other old movies?

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Is the Pope Catholic?

oh my god! a quote from GTA San Andreas

andrea87:
>>>>>oh my god! a quote from GTA San Andreas  

I had to Google to see what "GTA San Andreas" is.
GRAND THEFT AUTO?! That awful video game for sick American teenagers?!?! No, not a quote from that! I love computer games ... INTELLIGENT computer games like Ultima, Thief and many others, but never anything as gratuitously violent and twisted as GTA. Ugh.
"Is the Pope Catholic?" has been a common expression for 50+ years! Maybe lots more!
GTA. Ugh.

LOL!

Certo che pure tu, andrè, che ti pensavi che il Don giocasse a GTA?

-____-''

Hey Don, a little (nerd?) question just for fun... thinking about your idea concerning the realism of ducks, you consider they a human race just as the dog-characters, do you think this two race could have children? What they should look like?
A dog with a beak? A duck with a black-nose?
Ciao!

 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Ehi Don, una piccola domanda (nerd?) per divertirci un po'... dato il tuo famoso concetto di realismo dei paperi, da considerarli una razza umana così come i personaggi-cani, pensi che le due razze potrebbero avere figli tra loro? Cosa ne uscirebbe?
Un cane con un becco? Un papero con un naso nero?
Ciao!

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Is the Pope Catholic?

Oh, I see

Cortesemente, qualcuno traduce questo mio messaggio?

Don, ma la vecchia fabrica di piastrelle Rosa che fine ha fatto? Chi se n'è occupato dopo che hai deciso di dedicarti ai fumetti?
E ora, cos'è esattamente la riserva nella quale vivi?
Forse sono domande troppo personali, ma  la mia situazione non è molto diversa dalla tua: ho un'azienda agricola (farm) acquistata da nonno Zironi e che ho sempre trascurato per dedicarmi ai fumetti.
Sai, ancora mi chiedo se ho fatto bene. La farm è viva, reale e bisognosa di cure, mentre i personaggi dei comics sono solo un' illusione, anche se da bambino ero FERMAMENTE convinto del contrario. Ciao.

Cortesemente, qualcuno traduce questo mio messaggio?

Don, ma la vecchia fabrica di piastrelle Rosa che fine ha fatto? Chi se n'è occupato dopo che hai deciso di dedicarti ai fumetti?
E ora, cos'è esattamente la riserva nella quale vivi?
Forse sono domande troppo personali, ma  la mia situazione non è molto diversa dalla tua: ho un'azienda agricola (farm) acquistata da nonno Zironi e che ho sempre trascurato per dedicarmi ai fumetti.
Sai, ancora mi chiedo se ho fatto bene. La farm è viva, reale e bisognosa di cure, mentre i personaggi dei comics sono solo un' illusione, anche se da bambino ero FERMAMENTE convinto del contrario. Ciao.

A question from Zironi:
Don, what happened to the tile factory? Who operated it after you chose to become a cartoonist?
And what is exactly the "reserve" in which you live?
Maybe there questions are too personal, but my situation is not very different from yours: I own a farm which my grandfather bought, and I have always neglected it to work on comics.
You know, I still wonder if I did the right thing. The farm is alive, real, and in need of being looked after, while comics characters are just an illusion, although, as a child, I STRONGLY believed otherwise. Hi.

giangi72:
>>>>>And what about contaction Egmont   ?
If I fully understood you trust in them and in their passion.

What's your question here? Would I allow Egmont to produce lithographs of my work? I guess so. But it's up to THEM to decide this. I don't give them suggestions.

>>>>>And "last but non least" both of this projects wouldn't be dangerous for your eyes.

If I work slowly, I can write materials (like I am doing here) and I can still draw LARGE drawings (with my thick glasses off, my nose touching the paper, and my damaged eye covered). But are you asking me if I'd learn to paint in order enable them to produce lithographs? Probably not. They have destroyed my enthusiasm too well for me to be interested. And the idea of it as simply a way to make $$$ off fans does not interest me, and never did.

You are bad
I understand you are not very happy for their model of business but you have a big responsability with your fans
All of us are sad for your retire but, obviously, we greatly respect your decision.
And, yes, I suggested you to contact them.
It is a way to make money off fans but it is an happy way for us to do that.

P.s. I don't want you draw "with my thick glasses off, my nose touching the paper, and my damaged eye covered".
It's too much to ask you and I don't like to imagine you in that way to work for your fans.
No, a simple good edition lithograph with only your signature would be the great.

>>>>>You are talking of comics in Spain.
This summer I was in Scotland and the only disney comic I found, after a long search, was a stupid Thinkerbell comic for very young girls in an huge store.

Oh, yes, I guess I forgot to mention those islands. After all, Great Britain does not consider itself as a part of Europe, do they?
As near as I can figure, Great Britain is the only other country in the world where Disney comics have disappeared. And they did so in GB even before they did so in the USA and Spain.
I leave it to you Europeans to figure out why that is. Because they are too influenced by the decadent west?

I simply can't imagine the sadness of young generations.
I'm not so young and I read disney comics from ... always I can remember.
I remenber I learn reading on disney comics, I remember I learn speaking good reading disney comics.
What young people can read to do the same?
Superheroes?
Teletubbies comics?
What a sadness.

TRADUZIONE
Sei cattivo
Capisco che nenon sei felice per il loro modo di fare affari ba hauna grande responsabilità con i tuoi fan
Tutti noi siamo tristi per il tuo ritiro ma, ovviamente, decisamente rispettiamo la tua decisione.
E si, ti sto suggerendo di contattarli.
E' vero che è un modo di fare soldi sulla pelle dei fan ma sarebbe un modo felice per noi di farlo.

p.s. Io non voglio che tu disegni "senza occhiali con il naso che tocca il foglio e con l'occhio danneggiato coperto".
E' troppo chiedertelo e non mi piace immaginarti in quel modo a lavorare per i fan.
No, a semplice buona litografia con solo il tuo  autografo sarebbe il massimo.

...
Non riesco ad immaginare la tristezza delle nuove generazioni.
Io non sono così giovane e leggo fumetti Disney da... sempre per quello che mi ricordo.
Io ricordo di aver imparato a leggere sui fumetti disney, ricordo di aver imparato a parlare bene sui fumetti disney.
Cosa potrebbero leggere ora i giovani per fare lo stesso?
Supereroi?
Fumetti sui teletubbies?
Che tristezza.

p.s. nota per gli amministratori. Come mai le emoticon escono una volta si e una no?
In questo post ce ne sono 2: al 1° e 3° rigo ma non le vedo.
Ecco, nel testo inglese vedo il codice, nel testo italiano le emoticon. Bho

p.s. nota per gli amministratori. Come mai le emoticon escono una volta si e una no?
In questo post ce ne sono 2: al 1° e 3° rigo ma non le vedo.
Ecco, nel testo inglese vedo il codice, nel testo italiano le emoticon. Bho

Purtroppo spesso (perchè a volte ci sono delle eccezioni... boh) le emoticon si visualizzano solo se non si lascia più di uno spazio dopo l'ultimo carattere usato.

Esempio:

ciao!  <--- uno spazio

ciao!    <--- due spazi

Hi Don, another question.
In this topic, in which we were discussing about "Lost in the Andes", someone arose this question:
in "Return to Plain Awful" you make Donald remove the buttons from his jacket, since they are round and no round object is tolerated in Plain Awful. But in the original Barks' story Donald had the same round buttons and the local people did not seem to care about it. As a matter of fact, they seemed to care about round object being "produced", but not about their existence (they even held a round compass in the museum)... at least, that's how some readers have interpreted it. But you interpretation in the sequel seems to be different, that no round object is tolerated, whether it is produced "in the place" or already existing.

Did you choose to interpret Plain Awful's law in this way simply because it was convienent for the plot you had in mind? Or do you think that our interpretation is incorrect (and there is another explanation for the compass being tolerated)? Or, as some say, do you think that these details are not worthy being too fussy about them?

traduzione:
Ciao Don, un'altra domanda.
In questo topic, in cui stavamo parlando di "Paperino e il mistero degli incas", qualcuno ha sollevato la questione:
in "ritorno a Testaquadra" fai togliere a Paperino i bottoni della giacca perché sono tondi, e a Testaquadra non sono ammessi oggetti tondi. Ma nella storia di Barks originale Paperino aveva gli stessi bottoni e i lovali non sembravano preoccuparsene. In effetti sembrava che gli desse fastidio il fatto che venissero "prodotti" oggetti tondi, ma non la loro esistenza (avevano perfino una bussola rotonda, nel loro museo)... per lo meno, così è come la hanno interpretata alcuni lettori. Ma la tua interpretazione nel sequel sembrerebbe diversa, che nessun oggetto tondo è tollerato, che sia prodotto "sul posto" o già esistente.

Hai scelto di interpretare la legge edi Testaquadra in questo modo semplicemente perché era comodo per la trama che avevi in mente? O pensi che sia la nostra interpretazione ad essere sbagliata (e che ci sia un'altra spiegazione per il fatto che la bussola sia accettata)? O, come dicono alcuni, pensi non bvalga la pena di essere troppo pignoli riguardo a questi dettagli ?

Moreover the italian magazine "Zio Paperone" had already ask a similar question to Don. In his answer (on issue 93) he said (more or less... it's hard to translate a translation!): "[...] why the inhabitants of Plain Awful keep in their museum a round compass rather than destroy it? [...]". So I think that Don didn't choose to interpret Plain Awful's law, he just thoght about another interpretation... am I right, Don?

Trad:

Inoltre la rivista italiana "Zio Paperone" ha già posto una domanda simile a Don. Nella sua risposta (sul numero 93) ha detto (più o meno... è difficile tradurre una traduzione!): "[...] perchè gli abitanti di Testaquadra conservano nel loro museo una bussola rotonda anzichè distruggerla? [...]". Quindi penso che Don non abbia scelto di interpretare la legge di Testaquadra, ha solo pensato ad un'altra interpretazione... giusto, Don?

(Qualcuno controlli che non abbia fatto qualche strafalcione, grazie...)
@Brigitta: il tempo di ricordarmi di questa risposta del Don su ZP e di rintracciare l'albo che avevi già postato la domanda, sorry...

Brigitta:
>>>>>Did you choose to interpret Plain Awful's law in this way simply because it was convienent for the plot you had in mind? Or do you think that our interpretation is incorrect (and there is another explanation for the compass being tolerated)? Or, as some say, do you think that these details are not worthy being too fussy about them?

I think you're correct in all three ideas.

I had Donald remove his buttons just to show the Ducks were being extremely careful about *everything*, so that when it is later revealed that $crooge had not been willing to get rid of his #1 Dime, it would be a big surprise.

Maybe the Plain Awfultonians could ignore small unimportant roundnesses (like buttons) on their visitors -- surely the Professor from Birmingham had lots of round buttons as he was of a time before zippers. But the Awfultonians could not excuse a visitor who obviously held a round object in great regard and bragged about it, like $crooge did with his #1 Dime.

Or maybe in Barks' original tale the Plain Awfultonian law did NOT forbid ROUND objects... that's why the buttons had previously been ignored and why they kept the round compass in their museum in a place of honor. Maybe the law forbid SPHERICAL objects. But Barks knew that was too big a word and too advanced a concept for kids to understand, so he used "round".

Or... perhaps Barks *did* mean "round" but he wasn't allowed to alter Donald's physical licensed appearance (by removing his buttons), and didn't know how to invent a square compass which the Ducks needed to escape, so he just hoped readers wouldn't notice the buttons or the roundness of the compass.

Whatever the case... for my purposes I needed to interpret the situation as being that ROUND was forbidden.

Vito:
>>>>>a little (nerd?) question just for fun... thinking about your idea concerning the realism of ducks, you consider they a human race just as the dog-characters, do you think this two race could have children? What they should look like? A dog with a beak? A duck with a black-nose?

Or a bird with human legs (like Gyro)? Or one of those really CREEPY Ducks with human ears that Barks started using late in his career?

giangi72:
>>>>>I simply can't imagine the sadness of young generations.
...What young people can read to do the same? Superheroes Teletubbies comics? What a sadness.

Well, don't feel bad for the American kids. They don't WANT to read anything. That's the whole reason there are no Disney comics here -- kids stopped reading in the 1960's, so the big publisher who had the license to Disney and all the other movie & TV properties simply dropped comics and concentrated on their other businesses. And now you have a generation of kids whose parents never read anything, and whose GRANDPARENTS never read anything. It's an irreversible way of life here.

I was a guest at a SF/fantasy convention this past weekend. DragonCon -- look it up on the Internet. It's mostly for TV & movie fans. And a twenty-something girl went by my table and said "Oh. 'DuckTales'!" Naturally I said "Well, not exactly. These are the comic books that 'DuckTales' was based on." And she replied "Hmf. I don't read." ... like she was PROUD of it. And I assure you that is the prevalent attitude of American youth. This dumb girl knows she's like all her friends and that's how she wants it.

You read about Disney buying Marvel comics? Well, what they want are the rights to the superheroes in movies, TV, video games and toys. Merchandising. The American comics sales are too slim to be of interest to a big company like Disney.