Do you miss the original Gladstone?

[Hector]

Donald's cousin was not introduced as an exasperatingly lucky guy. In the first two stories in which Barks used him, he was practically a second Donald. Seeing the two of them arguing over who's the best and claiming they could do things that they could not was enjoyable. I think that concept could have produced more than two stories. Barks should have kept Gladstone as he was and created another character to be Donald's lucky cousin or, if he wanted to change Gladstone, he should have created another character to fill Gladstone's original role. What do you think?

[RobbK1]

I liked Gladstone better when he was Donald's unethical and dishonest rival for Daisy's favour, and not a ridiculously lucky character. He was extremely funny as a con man and trickster, and connoisseur of the fast buck. He was funniest when he had fake theatre tickets.

[TheMidgetMoose]

I feel like giving the "Donald's lucky cousin" shtick to Gladstone wasn't a bad decision on Barks' part. Gladstone would get a little bit boring if he was nothing more than "less moral Donald". I don't and wouldn't mind stories putting less emphasis on Gladstone's luck and more on his role as Donald's rival, but I don't think his luck should be written away or that it shouldn't have been added to his character. It helps round him out a bit. I think there should be more stories that use Gladstone in a major role without emphasizing his luck, which I feels gets emphasized a little bit too much sometimes, but a return to the original Gladstone would probably prove boring after so many stories.

[Hector]

Aug 11, 2019 21:03:48 GMT RobbK1 said:

I liked Gladstone better when he was Donald's unethical and dishonest rival for Daisy's favour, and not a ridiculously lucky character. He was extremely funny as a con man and trickster, and connoisseur of the fast buck. He was funniest when he had fake theatre tickets.

How about you create a character who will be what Gladstone originally was?

[Mesterius]

It probably says a lot about me that I saw this headline and thought, "Oh, someone's missing the original Gladstone I run of Disney comics".

[muggyruglugg]

He was always lazy and he was always arrogant. The luck just gave us a reason for him to be like that. That said, I think some writers take his luck too far. In some stories he's practically invincible. Does he even lose in any Don Rosa comic?

[Mesterius]

Aug 12, 2019 20:02:32 GMT muggyruglugg said:

He was always lazy and he was always arrogant. The luck just gave us a reason for him to be like that. That said, I think some writers take his luck too far. In some stories he's practically invincible. Does he even lose in any Don Rosa comic?

But that was always the logical flaw that you just had to accept in Barks' stories, even in masterpieces like "Luck of the North". In these stories, the premise from the beginning is that Gladstone is the world's luckiest duck, yet in some way or other Donald comes out winning in the end. Which is a good thing, because otherwise the story would feel REALLY depressing -- I certainly wouldn't want "Luck of the North" without its final, positive twist. But if you follow the logic of Gladstone being the luckiest person on earth, then ALL the good things should happen to him and Donald should be the loser in every way.

[muggyruglugg]

Aug 12, 2019 21:24:29 GMT Mesterius said:

Aug 12, 2019 20:02:32 GMT muggyruglugg said:

He was always lazy and he was always arrogant. The luck just gave us a reason for him to be like that. That said, I think some writers take his luck too far. In some stories he's practically invincible. Does he even lose in any Don Rosa comic?

But that was always the logical flaw that you just had to accept in Barks' stories, even in masterpieces like "Luck of the North". In these stories, the premise from the beginning is that Gladstone is the world's luckiest duck, yet in some way or other Donald comes out winning in the end. Which is a good thing, because otherwise the story would feel REALLY depressing -- I certainly wouldn't want "Luck of the North" without its final, positive twist. But if you follow the logic of Gladstone being the luckiest person on earth, then ALL the good things should happen to him and Donald should be the loser in every way.

He can be the luckiest person on earth without having all the good things happen to him, like who's the second luckiest person on earth?

[Mesterius]

Aug 12, 2019 23:59:29 GMT muggyruglugg said:

Aug 12, 2019 21:24:29 GMT Mesterius said:

But that was always the logical flaw that you just had to accept in Barks' stories, even in masterpieces like "Luck of the North". In these stories, the premise from the beginning is that Gladstone is the world's luckiest duck, yet in some way or other Donald comes out winning in the end. Which is a good thing, because otherwise the story would feel REALLY depressing -- I certainly wouldn't want "Luck of the North" without its final, positive twist. But if you follow the logic of Gladstone being the luckiest person on earth, then ALL the good things should happen to him and Donald should be the loser in every way.

He can be the luckiest person on earth without having all the good things happen to him, like who's the second luckiest person on earth?

True, I suppose. But there's still something that feels odd about him losing when the established premise is that he's lucky at every turn. Not that I'm complaining, to be clear, it's more of an observation.