Strange Disney comics covers

[Baar Baar Jinx]

Apr 6, 2018 0:13:27 GMT Ramapith said:

Apr 5, 2018 1:10:45 GMT RobbK1 said:

Daan Jippes used that gag in a cover, using The Big Bad Wolf and The 3 Little Pigs in the late 1970s.  I think it was used with Donald and his nephews during the early 1940s.

Rob, the Jippes cover is this one... inducks.org/story.php?c=HC+DD1981-04

And the 1940s Donald version is this one: inducks.org/story.php?c=W+WDC++29-00

It's not the same gag. In these versions, the skiier is being pulled—against his will—"around" a tree in two directions at once; logic still applies, so we know this won't work, and a collision is imminent.

In the Goofy version, logic doesn't apply because it's Goofy. He HAS gone around the tree in both directions at once—who knows how?

Charles Addams is generally credited with coming up with this gag in a 1940s New Yorker cartoon.



But I could have sworn I've seen it used in this exact way (ski tracks on either side of the tree on either side of a tree after a character has already passed it) on other Disney comics covers .. and possibly on Looney Tunes comics covers?

[Zantaf]

Apr 6, 2018 1:27:00 GMT Baar Baar Jinx said:

Apr 6, 2018 0:13:27 GMT Ramapith said:

Rob, the Jippes cover is this one... inducks.org/story.php?c=HC+DD1981-04

And the 1940s Donald version is this one: inducks.org/story.php?c=W+WDC++29-00

It's not the same gag. In these versions, the skiier is being pulled—against his will—"around" a tree in two directions at once; logic still applies, so we know this won't work, and a collision is imminent.

In the Goofy version, logic doesn't apply because it's Goofy. He HAS gone around the tree in both directions at once—who knows how?

Charles Addams is generally credited with coming up with this gag in a 1940s New Yorker cartoon.



But I could have sworn I've seen it used in this exact way (ski tracks on either side of the tree on either side of a tree after a character has already passed it) on other Disney comics covers .. and possibly on Looney Tunes comics covers?

You might be thinking of this cover by Miguel Fernandez Martinez:

[Minotaur]

Apr 6, 2018 0:13:27 GMT Ramapith said:

In the Goofy version, logic doesn't apply because it's Goofy. He HAS gone around the tree in both directions at once—who knows how?

So Goofy must be an electron !

[sirredknee]

It's done this way:

inducks.org/s.php?c=D++3908

[Baar Baar Jinx]

Apr 6, 2018 2:52:15 GMT Zantaf said:

You might be thinking of this cover by Miguel Fernandez Martinez:

That's the one! Maybe we need another thread about recycled/repurposed/recurrent gags and covers in Disney comics.

[RobbK1]

Apr 6, 2018 7:32:22 GMT sirredknee said:

It's done this way:

inducks.org/s.php?c=D++3908

Having been a back-country skier and ski trekker for over 30 years of my younger life (over 2,000 days), and, so, having skied through all types of snow conditions, I can tell you that the tracks around the tree couldn't look like that.  So, ALL those gags were drawn incorrectly.  If one of The Nephews had tried to make the tracks travel around the tree the way shown by the tracks, he would have failed.  The result of the skier detaching one ski and sending it downhill on his right side of the tree, while he continued downhill on one ski on his left side of the tree, the skier less ski would only have been able to continue downhill in a straight line.  It would NOT have skirted the tree in a roundish trajectory, as did the skier, purposely, on one leg.  More likely, the lone ski would have hit the tree, and stopped.  But, if the skier could have directed it, it could have missed the tree, but, if so, would have gone down the hill on a straight trajectory, not in a curve to avoid the tree.  Furthermore, based on the panels drawn, The Nephew, Goofy, Mickey and Donald would ALL have found it impossible to successfully remove their boot and send the ski downhill on its needed trajectory, while being located to one side of the tree, and still have time to get to the other side, to end up skiing on the one ski alongside the tree in that ovular arc, to make that track.  To accomplish THAT, the skier would have had to release the lone ski at least several meters up the hill, well above the tree.  And so, the track would separate several meters above the tree, and not provide the desired look.  It would not appear at all as if the skier split his legs to ski around the tree.

The only way to get the desired effect would be to have had the one skier ski down to the point of the pretended split, and continue down only on one ski, only on one side of the tree. Then he'd need to walk back up the hill to the point of the "separation", and ski down the other side on one ski, to the "pretended re-joining point".  From there, he would continue down wearing both skies.  HOWEVER, this method would NOT be successful, as anyone would see the footsteps in the snow, and realize what had been done there.  IF the perpetrator would have mushed up the snow to remove the footprints, THAT "unfreshening" of the snow (different texture-giving away man-made manipulation), would make the "scene" look "WRONG".

IF a fresh snow came along right after, to cover the footprints, it would also cover the ski tracks.  So, this trick/joke setup would be impossible to fool any onlookers, or even people who would come later.  THAT reality makes it impossible for me to enjoy the gag more than appreciating the effort of thinking up the idea for that gag. 

[Matilda]

Apr 6, 2018 14:49:54 GMT Baar Baar Jinx said:

Apr 6, 2018 2:52:15 GMT Zantaf said:

You might be thinking of this cover by Miguel Fernandez Martinez:

That's the one! Maybe we need another thread about recycled/repurposed/recurrent gags and covers in Disney comics.

Joe Torcivia just started doing a series of blogposts about recurrent gags on comics covers--not limited to Disney comics, though including them.

tiahblog.blogspot.com/2018/02/separated-at-mirth-three-bears-and.html

He's titling this series "Separated at Mirth." The comments on this first post in the series include references to some intra-Disney repeats.

[gadgetphile]

Talking 'bout skis, just stumbled across this. I think Donald's expression says all there is to say.

[Spectrus]

God, my cover post did lead to a discussion, eh?

[sirredknee]

This totally looks like a parody, but it's official stuff from Egmont!

[Matilda]

The queen of Denmark has already appeared on a Disney comic cover in Duckified (well, birdified) form--looking much more attractive than the young British royals, if I may say so!

[Zantaf]

What about this one, with Donald as Queen Elizabeth?

[Baar Baar Jinx]

Apr 19, 2018 8:21:00 GMT sirredknee said:

This totally looks like a parody, but it's official stuff from Egmont!

The biggest problem here is, I think, that those beaks are too small for adult "ducks", even adult female ducks, so they look just ... odd. Additionally, the beaks should not end so high above the chin. Of course, the default position would have been to make them dognoses, but I guess they wanted the duck imagery to be front and center.

[Monkey_Feyerabend]

Apr 6, 2018 0:13:27 GMT Ramapith said:

Apr 5, 2018 1:10:45 GMT RobbK1 said:

And the 1940s Donald version is this one: inducks.org/story.php?c=W+WDC++29-00

My ability to recognize authors is down to 0. I would have bet my grandmother that this was a cover by W. Kelly.  

[Monkey_Feyerabend]

Apr 6, 2018 7:32:22 GMT sirredknee said:

It's done this way:

inducks.org/s.php?c=D++3908

Ok, in a way this one-pager is really a masterpiece.