Papersera.net

Clinton Coot:
>>>>>>>I would be curious what Don Rosa think about it.

Had Barks been influenced by having seen GENTLEMEN PREFER BLONDES when he designed Glittering Goldie? Well, just so as not to ignore a question, all I can say is that I don't know what was on Barks' mind.

Don, I've always been wondering whether the signs on the candle in "of ducks, Dimes and Destinies" were actually having a meaning. I've did a bit of a research, but I couldn't find any known (by me) alphabet matching with them.
I'm missing something here?
-------------------------------------
Don mi sono sempre chiesto se i segni riportati sulla candela di "Decini e Destini" avessero un qualche significato. Ho fatto una rapida ricerca ma non ho trovato alcun alfabeto da me conosciuto che coincidesse.
Sto trascurando qualcosa?

Questa mi giunge nuova: sapevo che in quegli stessi anni la Trilli-Campanellino di Peter Pan era stata ricalcata sulla Monroe ma che anche Doretta avesse avuto lo stesso 'stampo' mi sembra bizzarro.
Ricordo in un topic sui Disney 'umani' una foto di Marilyn cantante e ballerina di saloon in un western del 1954 (River of No Return - La Magnifica Preda) in cui poteva avvicinarsi ad una Doretta 'umana', però il film uscì un anno dopo 'Back to the Klondike'.
Forse dal film citato da Fa.Gian si è ripresa una preziosa e sfavillante coroncina regalata a Marilyn da un miliardario durante una crociera (era della moglie!).
Sarei curioso di sapere cosa ne pensa Don Rosa.
________________________________________________________________________________
This is new for me: I know in those years the Peter Pan's Trilli was modelled on the Monroe's silhouette but it's bizarre that Goldie too had had the same imprint mould.
I remember in a topic about the 'Human Disney' that a picture of Marilyn from the western movie River of No Return (1954), when she was a dancer and singer, could be as a 'human' Goldie even if the movie was made one year after Back to the Klondike.
Maybe from the movie mentioned by Fa.Gian (Gentlemen prefer Blondes) a precious and 'glittering' crown gave to Marilyn by a millionaire (it was of his wife!) was retaken for the Goldie's look.
I would be curious what Don Rosa think about it.

Parlavo della caratterizzazione psicologica.

Quando Doretta si "avventa" bramosa sulle pepite di Paperone, il carattere è IDENTICO a quello di Lorelei Lee che spasima per i diamanti ("Diamond are girls best friends", ricordi? ^^).

Poi che Lorelei non sia una cantante di Saloon con vestito dorato, ma una canzonettista di lusso con abito rosso glitterato non dovrebbe essere dirimente, ma la pettinatura, gli sguardi che le da Barks, sono chiaramente mutuati dall'interpretazione della Monroe.

E il film è coevo della storia di Barks (entrambe del 1953)

Hi mister Don Rosa,

I apologize if return on an old question, but it is a bloody wound for us, italian fans... and sorry for my bad english 

Perhaps you know that from some months in Italy there is a new publisher of Disney comics, The Panini Comics
Do you think you can have with this new editor any contact for the publication of your completed work in Italy or you think it is absolutely impossible?

----------------------------------------------------------

Salve Don Rosa,

Mi scuso se ritorno su una vecchia questione, ma è una ferita sanguinante per noi, ammiratori italiani ... e mi scuso per il mio cattivo inglese 

Forse sa che da qualche mese in italia c'è un nuovo editore di fumetti Disney, la Panini Comics

Pensa di poter avere con questo nuovo editore qualche contatto per la pubblicazione in italia della sua opera completa, oppure lo ritiene ancora impossibile?

Surely the forumist uncle carl didn't want to be offensive:
he just wrote his opinion about that photo, without adding more words. And the emoticon has been put ironically, not to offend. We can have different sense of humour: it depends on people (and on countries). And he is not a troll: he's a big admirer of the character Scrooge McDuck and a big estimator of Carl Barks' and Don Rosa's stories. Anybody decides to become 'public' (just only in a comics forum photo) knows, consequently, to receive judgements and critics.

Sicuramente il forumista uncle carl non voleva essere offensivo:
ha solo scritto la sua opinione su quella foto senza aggiungere altro. E la faccetta è stata messa ironicamente, non per offendere. Abbiamo diversi sensi dell'umorismo: dipende dalle persone (e dai paesi). E non è un troll: è un grande ammiratore del personaggio di Zio Paperone e un grande estimatore delle storie di Carl Barks e Don Rosa. Chiunque decida di diventare 'pubblico' (anche solo in una foto all'interno di un forum di fumetti) sa, conseguentemente, di ricevere giudizi e critiche.

Incredible. I never expected to unleash all this chaos :o

!?!?!?
For someone to simply write a quick "A me non piace proprio" ("I do not like it") and add a sour-expression emoticon in reference to this lovely costume wrapped around this lovely girl, and then give no further explanation, strikes me as quite rude.

I have not criticized the beauty of VICTORIA. In fact, I like her a lot. Just as I have no VICTORIA criticized as a person, unlike you, dear Don, you called me "rude" just because I expressed my opinion.

I am ashamed only of the ONE brusque and insulting message-writer.

I do not think at all that my message is sharp, at least offensively. I repeat: this is just my opinion and, as such, it can not appeal to everyone.

What shames the forum was that one single rude critic, almost like a troll, with his brusque dismissal and the rude emoticon. I still await either a reasonable explanation of WHY he dislikes the cosplay... or an apology for being so rude to a young foreign Duckfan on this otherwise classy forum.

I'm not used to expressing my opinion and then "disappear", like a troll.
In fact, I'm here to answer you.

Do you want an explanation? I do not like cosplay, simply because, it does not express Goldie's fighting and sweet spirit.
I don't like her trick: the eyebrows are too marked in black, and facial expression don't tell me anything.

I'm sorry that you're still bad.
But I regret most, being called "rude" so easily, by a person to whom I have enormous respect as he was able to resurrect my favorite character: Scrooge McDuck.
The rudeness, the real one, is another one and doesn't belong to me.

Mr. Rosa, I'm extremely glad to se that you' ve come back to this forum. In fact, i hadn't registered yet when you last partecipate, around an year ago.

I want to express you my greatest congratulations for your entire career and for all your creations, especially The Life and Times of Scrooge McDuck. I have followed your works since childhood (i'm currently 25) and I think your activity has given a huge boost to the diffusion of Disney comics and to the consideration they have, around the world, as a form of art.

I also completely agree with you about the long-standing issue whether your stories can be considered canonical or not in the Disneyverse, and of the difference of interpretation of the characters between different authors.
It's even obvious that every author possesses his own  sensibility and nobody's interpretation is supposed to be the only one. Many times i have seen on the Internet-or even partecipated to-quarrels between hordes of fans of yours who believe your version of the Disney Comics can be the only one possible, and Others-as much convinced-haters, who questioned the very existence of your stories, considered too much detailed, personal, and occasionally unfaithful to the essence of the characters.

Trying to reason with both parties-who are both in error, for opposite reasons-ALWAYS proves to be useless, since they are wierdly fanatical in their beliefs, but i'm very happy that your personal opinion, clearly expressed on this very forum a pair of months ago, clearly states the obvious thruth that every Disney fan blessed with common sense already knew: that there exist no such a thing as "THE TRUTH" in comics, only the different, and personal interpretations of talented authors, each enjoyable for different reasons.

Thank you so much for your time, and I apologize for every English error I may have committed in this long post.

Mi scuso anche con i moderatori per non aver scritto il messaggio anche in italiano, a beneficio degli utenti che non conoscano l'inglese: purtroppo ho poco tempo, ma rimedierò domani, se non sarà troppo tardi.

uncle carl:
>>>>>unlike you, dear Don, you called me "rude" just because I expressed my opinion.

No, you didn't simply "express an opinion". Note that, previous to you, someone else expressed an opinion of dislike, and that was fine. I accepted that in stride. It came with a brief explanation and was polite. Your offering was "I don't like it" and a tongue sticking out like a nasty child saying "nyah!", then you were out the door, so to speak. Sorry, but in these parts that comes across as *quite* rude.

This is the ONLY forum I have ever been part of that is populated by completely polite and respectful adult writers. That's why it is the ONLY forum on the entire Internet that I take part in.

Thank you for the belated explanation, one which was not followed by a sarcastic face.

Cornelius Coot:
>>>>>he just wrote his opinion about that photo, without adding more words. And the emoticon has been put ironically, not to offend. We can have different sense of humour.

This is the sort of simple, easily accepted explanation I expected from the other party. I will accept your apology on his behalf. Grazie.

uncle carl:
>>>>>unlike you, dear Don, you called me "rude" just because I expressed my opinion.

No, you didn't simply "express an opinion". Note that, previous to you, someone else expressed an opinion of dislike, and that was fine. I accepted that in stride. It came with a brief explanation and was polite. Your offering was "I don't like it" and a tongue sticking out like a nasty child saying "nyah!", then you were out the door, so to speak. Sorry, but in these parts that comes across as *quite* rude.

This is the ONLY forum I have ever been part of that is populated by completely polite and respectful adult writers. That's why it is the ONLY forum on the entire Internet that I take part in.

Thank you for the belated explanation, one which was not followed by a sarcastic face.

The smiley face with the tongue, was not used to offend. But just for a joke.

There has been a misunderstanding, but that does not mean to call "rude" someone.
I assure you, then, that mine was an opinion.

Anyway, now I will not use more than the smiley face with the tongue in your discussions.

Cornelius Coot:
>>>>>he just wrote his opinion about that photo, without adding more words. And the emoticon has been put ironically, not to offend. We can have different sense of humour.

This is the sort of simple, easily accepted explanation I expected from the other party. I will accept your apology on his behalf. Grazie.

Cornelius Coot did not apologize to me, because mine was not an offense, but only an opinion.

Then next time express your opinion in a more polite manner.

And that's the end of this matter. Period.

tang laoya:
>>>>>>I've always been wondering whether the signs on the candle in "of ducks, Dimes and Destinies" were actually having a meaning. I've did a bit of a research, but I couldn't find any known (by me) alphabet matching with them.
I'm missing something here?

You'll need to ask me that question when I can answer it, say in 1992.

I have no recollection as to where I got those runes, but knowing me, I would have spent hours of research to make sure I used some that had special meaning. Maybe I looked in the appendices of my copy of LORD OF THE RINGS.

Let me know if you ever locate them!

P.S.: Despite what you have read for many years, the CORRECT title of that story is "Of Ducks and Dimes and Destinies". It is meant to be a reference to a line in Lewis Carroll's poem "The Walrus and the Carpenter" in THROUGH THE LOOKING-GLASS. That line went "Of shoes and ships and sealing wax". This story is being called by the correct title in all reprintings since the turn of the century... at least the "authorized" reprints.

Then next time express your opinion in a more polite manner.

And that's the end of this matter. Period.

My opinion was not offensive, but playful.

Yes, we close here.

Dinamite Bla:
>>>>>Perhaps you know that from some months in Italy there is a new publisher of Disney comics, The Panini Comics
Do you think you can have with this new editor any contact for the publication of your completed work in Italy or you think it is absolutely impossible?

I actually know one of the bigwigs at Panini Comics -- he has been a friend (and a big Duckfan) for about 15 or more years. So, the possibility of there being an Italian collection of my work is now more possible than before.

But the Panini people (not just my friend) must agree that they need to get my permission and cooperation for the use of my trademarked name and texts and additional material before they can publish such a collection. All they need to do is that. The previous publisher would not even consider the idea of discussing such a concept.

Next time I chat with my Panini Pal, I'll see what he thinks!

Thanks for asking.