I also tend to dislike Rosa's art, since it's far too stiff and off model, both in general (character) design and staging. The style simply just doesn't fit with Barks or any other Duck comic artists, and I guess you either think of that as a strength or as a major weakness (as I do). His style is especially problematic when it comes to violence/characters getting hurt, etc. Barks and other artists' styles were based on flexible/strechable slapstick characters, who could get "hurt" in cartoonishly funny and unrealistic ways, in the spirit of the animation from which Donald origined. In Rosa's stories, however (especially his later ones, where in just about ever other panel Donald gets violently beaten up by Scrooge for the umpteenth time. And don't get me started on those "hulk-smash" moments from Lo$) his gritty, realistic style in combination with what is supposed to be cartoon violence, come off as disturbing to me.
Also, I don't think it's necessarily a strength to cram as many little details into a panel as possible; knowing what is essential in telling a story and leaving out what is not essential is a an important part of storytelling.
But then again, Rosa has said plenty of times that he doesn't really like his own art, either, and says it's the story that counts, in his opinion.
Last Edit: May 24, 2018 23:26:13 GMT by Scroogerello
I don't like Don Rosa's drawing style, with its stiffness, odd perspectives, being off-model, distance from Barks' style, and and his attempting to fill up all space with visual information. It seems lifeless and soulless, while Barks', Jippes', Milton's, Gulbransson's, Scarpa's, Branca's, and Gottfredson's seems so lifelike, I can get lost in the story, like a good book or film. I also don't like his story writing style much, with its trying to include too much detailed "information", which draws attention away from the main storyline action. I don't own many of Rosa's stories in either English or Dutch language, and I don't feel deprived in the slightest.
I do not like Rosa so much because he throws the hat to many stories or texts from Barks. As there is nothing in the Lo$ about the magical hourglass and the story Voodoo Hoodoo has been moved from 1879 to 1909.
He has explained multiple times why he changed those things.
I do not think it's such good reasons. He could have gone to Africa in 1879 and he why he should not earn his money with happiness. According to Rosa, his first dime would not be lucky either, and Barks did, but Rosa liked the story Only Poor A Old Man and said that he worked harder than the hardest and smarter than the smartest while he could have his money earned by luck and hard work.
Rosa's lack of animation experience--which sets him apart from Barks, Scarpa, Van Horn, Jippes, and most of the other major Duck artists--is at the root of his artistic weaknesses, I think; he never got a chance to learn the importance of paring down drawings and designs to their essentials and making them flow smoothly from one panel to the next. I tend to prefer his earlier art to his later art; even then, his drawing was stiff--and often looked like an awkward attempt to copy Barks--but it wasn't as cluttered as it became in his later years. As mentioned, his excessively "realistic" and detailed drawing really hurts him when it comes to drawing slapstick action; Donald's multifarious injuries in his stories simply look painful instead of amusing, as do the injuries inflicted on the bad guys in Young Scrooge's "Hulk Smash" scenes--contrast Barks' "Back to the Klondike" fight-scene splash-panel with Rosa's fight-scene splash-panel in "Raider of the Copper Hill" for a graphic demonstration of how much better Barks, with his cartooning background, was at rendering cartoon violence in an amusing fashion as opposed to a wince-inducing one.
Addendum: I don't object to Rosa's failure to adhere to every minuscule detail of the so-called Barks "canon;" Barks didn't believe that there was such a canon himself, and happily disregarded it when doing so could make for a good story. Rosa, admittedly, opens himself up for such criticism by his emphasis on his fidelity to Barksian "fact," but I dislike the whole rigid continuity obsession so much that I'm not going to use it as a weapon against anyone. I do regard the Life and Times as an impressive but frustratingly misguided waste of time and effort; I would have had no problem with Rosa doing periodic flashback stories chronicling Scrooge's youthful exploits, but writing a full biography for the character and pinning him down to a specific timeline removes too much of his larger-than-life quality; it also has, in practice, led to a depressing narrowing of story possibilities for other writers--since so many editors and fans are committed to adhering to the so-called "Barks-Rosa" universe. That narrowing isn't Rosa's fault, however, since he's never tried to impose his own "continuity" on other creators; still, I wish he hadn't introduce the rigid continuity concept into the Ducks' world in the first place.
I liked Rosa's art especially when I was younger. However, by growing up I realised that his art is not all perfect and I appreciated both Barks and Italian artists art way more! One thing I started to dislike over the years is the way he draws the ducks sometimes (too much like humans) and the the way he draws teeth for example. Unlike Barks whom I consider the ultimate Duck Master.
Art from Mottura, Cavazzano, De Vita, Gervasio, Carpi, Rota, Scarpa and Casty has a special place in my heart. Also, in America you had Rosa and Barks for almost ever... The Italian stories are something fresh. Also, I assure you, that you haven't even read the pinnaple of Italian stories too.
Rosa is great but there are Italian artists that are great too. And Rosa himself said that if he could draw in a different style then he would like to be Rota's.
Also, I agree that even if I love the Life and Times that the continuety thing and the dates etc have damaged in some way other artists. That's why its best to have many versions. And Barks is the center of them all. Rosa like the Italian artists is just another road of the Barks verse, not more "cannon" than the other artists.
He has explained multiple times why he changed those things.
I do not think it's such good reasons. He could have gone to Africa in 1879 and he why he should not earn his money with happiness. According to Rosa, his first dime would not be lucky either, and Barks did, but Rosa liked the story Only Poor A Old Man and said that he worked harder than the hardest and smarter than the smartest while he could have his money earned by luck and hard work.
I agree. The fact that Scrooge earned his money through very hard work does necessarily mean he never had any luck--Scrooge had a enormous amount of luck; there's many people who work very hard for their entire life, but never end up rich. Besides, "The Magic Hourglass", for example, is wonderfully ambiguous about the whole matter; it is never explicitly stated whether the Hourglass did in fact provide Scrooge with good fortune. Scrooge doesn't think much of the thing, and gives it away. When he starts losing heaps of money afterwards, he starts to doubt himself, and thinks it was the hourglass that made him rich. It's very similar to Barks' later story, "Lost Beneath the Sea", where the loss of his lucky dime suddenly makes him lose money. I like the idea of Scrooge refusing to believe that he ever had any luck, but is secretly somewhat superstitious, thinking of the dime as a bringer of good fortune. That's what Barks implied, at least.
Alas, Don Rosa proudly declared "to hell with it!" when asked about "The Magic Hourglass," and said the same about the story with Miss Penny Wise, where he even claimed (with no evidence) that Barks didn't write the story, or that Barks was "having a bad day" when he wrote it the story. ( bb.mcdrake.nl/engdisney/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=113 ) In the same message, he also mentions that
"it is an ESSENTIAL part of $crooge's character and personality and motivations that Glittering Goldie was his only love, that that love may or may not have ever been consumated (there in White Agony Valley), and that that love will never be renewed. This is one of the best parts of the $crooge legend."
I mean, come on, he tries to make the case that this one-shot character from Barks' stories was "on of the best parts" of Scrooge's character? That already sums up pretty well why his "reasons" for ignoring a number of Barks stories shouldn't be taken seriously. His disregard of Barks facts that he doesn't like is based on his own (somewhat dubious) interpretation of Barks stories, NOT on the quality of the stories.
Rosa's interpretation of "Only a Poor Old Man", which he repeatedly mentions as an argument to ignore "The Magic Hourglass", is far-fetched and unfaithful to Barks' stories, anyway. Rosa portrays Scrooge as an sentimental man, who doesn't like money for its value, but for the memories it brings him. That's about as far from Barks's Scrooge as you can get. Barks' Scrooge loves his money because he worked so hard to get it, and because he' can simply be greedy (which is his villainous streak in Barks's stories that helped make the character so interesting), NOT because he's an extremely sentimental guy who lives in the past and spends his days reminiscing with his money as a giant scrapbook. In fact, there were numerous Barks stories where Scrooge trades in all of his coins for greenbacks (in "How Green Was My Lettuce", for example, and "The Round Money Bin").
Attachments:
Last Edit: May 25, 2018 15:23:37 GMT by Scroogerello
Rosa's lack of animation experience--which sets him apart from Barks, Scarpa, Van Horn, Jippes, and most of the other major Duck artists--is at the root of his artistic weaknesses, I think; he never got a chance to learn the importance of paring down drawings and designs to their essentials and making them flow smoothly from one panel to the next. I tend to prefer his earlier art to his later art; even then, his drawing was stiff--and often looked like an awkward attempt to copy Barks--but it wasn't as cluttered as it became in his later years. As mentioned, his excessively "realistic" and detailed drawing really hurts him when it comes to drawing slapstick action; Donald's multifarious injuries in his stories simply look painful instead of amusing, as do the injuries inflicted on the bad guys in Young Scrooge's "Hulk Smash" scenes--contrast Barks' "Back to the Klondike" fight-scene splash-panel with Rosa's fight-scene splash-panel in "Raider of the Copper Hill" for a graphic demonstration of how much better Barks, with his cartooning background, was at rendering cartoon violence in an amusing fashion as opposed to a wince-inducing one.
Lack of animation experience is, indeed, one of Rosa's problems in his drawing (especially related to lack of ability to mimic natural-looking movement). But, I think his general problem is more a lack of any bonafide drawing training. Even Barks and Gottfredson had guided training in courses taken through The Post, plus many years (hundreds of thousands of hours) of practising those skills before starting to draw comic book stories professionally.
When I grew up, I thought that most Donald Duck art looked sketchy and rough, kind of unfinished. While I still do to some extent, I can also appreciate the skill of artists like Carl Barks. I thought that Rosa's art looked more finished.
Some people in this thread don't like that his art is more realistic, but I actually prefer it that way. I think that has to do with what we want our Duck-stories to fundamentally be. Rosa himself has said that he doesn't care for the cartoons, so I guess it makes sense that his art doesn't present the characters as cartoon characters, but rather as more realistic ones. I personally don't have a problem with the cartoons, but as I said, I just prefer Rosa's style of artwork. I do agree that there might be a clash between the realistic approach to art and his cartoony slap-stick, however.
His background jokes can be both charming and distracting to the plot. I don't have an opinion of them collectively, but rather on an individual basis. Some work, others don't. I feel the same about his excessive use of details. Sometimes it works, other times it's distracting.
In Sweden, where I grew up, all I've ever heard is praise for Don Rosa (and as stated, I too adore his work). Before I became a member in this forum, I wasn't aware that people have such a dislike for Rosa's work in other places of the world. That's fascinating to me. It's always interesting to hear both sides of an argument. Next time I read a Rosa-story, I'll have all critique in the back of my mind and see if I can see where all of you are coming from.
The following is not about his art, but still Rosa-related. I really like that Rosa tries to adhere to a consistent universe, with continuity and canon, and what not. I also like that he stuck the flag in the ground and said "the stories take place in the 50s". I can see why people don't like it; it certainly limits what you can do with the characters and what stories you can tell. But to have the stories set in a specific time grounds them and makes them feel more real to me. They become something more than cartoon characters. I even wish we could see the characters grow up, especially Huey, Dewey, and Louie (they don't have to turn out as bad as in Quack Pack). I remember back when I was around ten years old, and I first saw Rosa's Family Tree. That was the most exciting thing I had ever seen. I guess that was because it felt like the Duck universe was real, complete with backstory and older generations.
So I guess all that goes hand in hand with the fact that I like Rosa's more "realistic" art style. And if that's not what other people want the Duck universe to be, then I completely understand.
When I grew up, I thought that most Donald Duck art looked sketchy and rough, kind of unfinished. While I still do to some extent, I can also appreciate the skill of artists like Carl Barks. I thought that Rosa's art looked more finished.
Some people in this thread don't like that his art is more realistic, but I actually prefer it that way. I think that has to do with what we want our Duck-stories to fundamentally be. Rosa himself has said that he doesn't care for the cartoons, so I guess it makes sense that his art doesn't present the characters as cartoon characters, but rather as more realistic ones. I personally don't have a problem with the cartoons, but as I said, I just prefer Rosa's style of artwork. I do agree that there might be a clash between the realistic approach to art and his cartoony slap-stick, however.
His background jokes can be both charming and distracting to the plot. I don't have an opinion of them collectively, but rather on an individual basis. Some work, others don't. I feel the same about his excessive use of details. Sometimes it works, other times it's distracting.
In Sweden, where I grew up, all I've ever heard is praise for Don Rosa (and as stated, I too adore his work). Before I became a member in this forum, I wasn't aware that people have such a dislike for Rosa's work in other places of the world. That's fascinating to me. It's always interesting to hear both sides of an argument. Next time I read a Rosa-story, I'll have all critique in the back of my mind and see if I can see where all of you are coming from.
The following is not about his art, but still Rosa-related. I really like that Rosa tries to adhere to a consistent universe, with continuity and canon, and what not. I also like that he stuck the flag in the ground and said "the stories take place in the 50s". I can see why people don't like it; it certainly limits what you can do with the characters and what stories you can tell. But to have the stories set in a specific time grounds them and makes them feel more real to me. They become something more than cartoon characters. I even wish we could see the characters grow up, especially Huey, Dewey, and Louie (they don't have to turn out as bad as in Quack Pack). I remember back when I was around ten years old, and I first saw Rosa's Family Tree. That was the most exciting thing I had ever seen. I guess that was because it felt like the Duck universe was real, complete with backstory and older generations.
So I guess all that goes hand in hand with the fact that I like Rosa's more "realistic" art style. And if that's not what other people want the Duck universe to be, then I completely understand.
I don't agree. I think that Barks' drawing is much, much more "realistic" than that of Rosa. Barks' people and backgrounds, natural things (landforms, plantlife), architecture, ALL look much more like what we see in life than Rosa's depictions, all of which just look like 2-dimensional lines on a peace of paper. The reason why Barks' stories caught my attention, was the combination of stories about characters that behaved like real people, set in settings that looked like they do in real life. The characters move like people and animals. The mountains, trees, bushes, water in the sea, lakes and rivers look like they do in real life (e.g. as in photographs, or my own eyes when viewing them. I could jump into the stories and "live in them", as I do when reading a good book, or watching a good film. I am completely unaware that I am reading a story.
Whereas, when I'm reading Duck stories by less accomplished artists(in my opinion-no offence intended), such as Riley Thompson, Frank McSavage, Phil DeLara, Vic Lockman, Jim Fletcher, Tony Strobl's later inkers, and Don Rosa, the art just looks like lines on paper. Daan Jippes, Freddy Milton, Ben Verhagen, Jan Gulbransson, Mau Heymans, Daniel Branca, Romano Scarpa, Marco Rota, Carlos Mota, and Santiago Scalabroni ALL had that same "live in the story effect" on me, only being to a lesser extent, varying from case to case. Jippes and Milton, together, were the only ones who approached Barks' "realism". And, yet, all of these well-trained artists had a "cartoony" style, despite also having their panel art look more "realistic" than stiff lines on a paper. Stiff lines that don't look like they could move, or that you could touch them, as a 3-dimensional object cannot appear more realistic than a cartoony figure that looks more 3-dimensional, and looks like it is really moving.
To expound upon my point, and even apply it to Rosa, himself, I like his unfinished scribbles, which are loose, and fluid, and actually DO suggest movement, much, much, much,much better than his stiff, unlifelike, inked drawings. I can't even wade through his inked stories. I can't even discern what is going on in them (just a cluttered bunch of lines). I can actually read Rosa's scribbles, and tell what is going on. I would actually read Don Rosa's stories if his scribbles were printed in physical comic books. The same would be true for stories written by some of the great Duck writers, who can also draw well, and whose storyboard scribbles are beautiful art (Jan Kruse, Evart Geradts, Gorm Transgaard, Frank Jonker). I'd rather read their printed scribbles than inked pages drawn and inked by stiff-handed finishing artists.
In Sweden, where I grew up, all I've ever heard is praise for Don Rosa (and as stated, I too adore his work). Before I became a member in this forum, I wasn't aware that people have such a dislike for Rosa's work in other places of the world.
I think this is the main reason why Rosa's stories are so insanely popular in Scandinavia--he never gets any criticism. It reminds me of the tale of the Emperor's new clothes: the snobbish idea that, if you don't see what's good about it, you simply don't understand it (Rosa especially had a strong tendency to this, saying things like "only real Barks fans will fully appreciate my work" and such). Consequently, Everybody jumps on the bandwagon of "it must be great", and nobody questions it. In the Netherlands, people (including the publishers) were much more rational and critical when it came to Rosa's work, and, as such, Rosa's work is much, much less popular here than in other European countries, while the Donald Duck comics/characters are still extremely popular here, and have been a cultural icon here since the 1950s. In fact, none of Rosa's work has ever appeared in the Dutch Donald Duck Weekly, which is by far the most read and subscribed to Disney comic magazine (perhaps even the most read magazine in general) in the Netherlands.
The following is not about his art, but still Rosa-related. I really like that Rosa tries to adhere to a consistent universe, with continuity and canon, and what not. I also like that he stuck the flag in the ground and said "the stories take place in the 50s". I can see why people don't like it; it certainly limits what you can do with the characters and what stories you can tell. But to have the stories set in a specific time grounds them and makes them feel more real to me. They become something more than cartoon characters.
Still, it goes directly against what Barks intended. Barks had a "floating timeline", where everything just takes place in the "present", and NEVER intended Duckburg to be frozen in the 50s. Plenty of his stories clearly take place in the 1960s (the then-present), including "The Not so Ancient Mariner", where (beatnik) Gladstone and Daisy have been updated to the trends of the 1960s, and "North of the Yukon", where 1898 is referred to as "68 years ago". I can't help but think that, if Rosa wanted to radically change and mold Barks' characters and world into what Rosa wanted them to be (and reject Barks facts/stories left and right as "non-canon" when he doesn't like them, as if he's the one who decides which Barks stories "count" and which don't), why didn't he just invent his own comic strip with his own characters?
Last Edit: May 26, 2018 15:47:31 GMT by Scroogerello
The Donald Duck magazine is the most widely read children's magazine between the ages of 6 and 12. And, according to me, a Rosa comic appeared in the weekly magazine, but he only signed it.
The Donald Duck magazine is the most widely read children's magazine between the ages of 6 and 12. And, according to me, a Rosa comic appeared in the weekly magazine, but he only signed it.
There was indeed one short art-only story very early in Rosa's career (written by Evert Geradts, I believe) that was printed in the weekly magazine. But that's besides the point, really; all other Rosa stories (i.e. the stuff he's known for) were never printed in the weekly, and therefore of no interest to the publishers when selecting stories for their most-read product. Thom Roep, the former editor-in-chief of the weekly for many years, was especially critical of Rosa. Even when they printed the family tree, they had a Dutch artist redraw it, so that it wouldn't have the unappealing style of Rosa's art.
