I'm really trying to be open-minded and seeing this as its own thing where nods to the comics would just be a nice extra but this money bin... urgh.
Ohh… This. So, so this. And I'm not quite happy with their changing the design of McDuck Manor, too, though at least that new design doesn't plain look awful regardless of how one feels about the change.
I'm really trying to be open-minded and seeing this as its own thing where nods to the comics would just be a nice extra but this money bin... urgh.
Ha! Ha! The New DuckTales has Scrooge's money bin on Mont Saint Michel!!!
And why does the environment in Scrooge's Mansion area look properly mid-latitude, but that other neighbourhood have only palm trees? Is that supposed to be a tropical place in an adventure story, where Scrooge and his nephews travel? I hope that isn't just supposed to be a different neighbourhood in Duckburg.
You don't even have to have to him live there (Barks usually didn't), but reducing the bin to a "vault" already makes me question if the writers understand anything at all about Scrooge's character.
Which is something that one can consistently think even if she is the greatest Barks's fan in the universe. Animation and comics are two different languages. You don't get a great comics book by putting on comics Toy Story, despite Toy Story being an astonishingly example of great animation. And viceversa: the best Barks's story could not be appealing for animation purposes.
Animation and comics are two different languages, that's true, but this doesn't mean that changes are necessary. Take manga (Japanese comics) as an example: when they are turned into an anime, they are usually adapted sequence by sequence, scene by scene, dialogue by dialogue, word by word. The result of this is often pretty good, so I don't see why it wouldn't work for Barks stories.
So, it is an urban legend that changes are needed when translating a story into another medium: changes can be made, and they may be good or bad, but it's not true at all that changes are necessary.
Sorry for the late answer, I had no time in the last couple of days...
No urban legend. Changes are necessary. Storytelling is the way you tell a story. And first and foremost the language that you use affects that way. The phrase "you don't have to change from comics to animation" makes no sense to me. It is not true that manga are translated sequence by sequence into anime. And even if a certain manga is used as a direct storyboard (and I think that this case occurs veeeeery rarely, if ever), there is much more to be done. Anyway, believe me, good anime are not a matter of animating panel by panel the corresponding manga.
The point is that, more or less unconsciously, you keep considering the plot as most of the thing. This is shown in the following quote of yours:
Plus, didn't you say yoursalf yesterday that "Sport Goofy in Soccermania" used identical Beagle Boys like in the comics? This shows that, even if the people in charge of DuckTales wanted most episodes to be original stories rather than adaptations of Barks stories (which is a legitimate choice: most of Scrooge's comics published today are original stories rather than reprints of old comics) there was no reason they couldn't keep the Beagle Bloys from the comics. They could change it of course, but we can't say it was necessary to do so.
Here you are taking an irrelevant aspect about some characters and using it to infer something which involves so many and so much morecomplicated aspects.
Let me be clear: hell yeah that anything done by Barks could make an amazing cartoon! Even bad comics can be turned into good animation, so why couldn't great comics like Barks's ones*? But if given in the hands of good animators: people who know their job, who can put their art. And "their" is the main word here. Their art is not something that they can find in Barks's comics.
(*By the way, remember that even before turning into comics, as the main writer of Donald's toons from 1936 to 1942, Barks was already one of the most important animation writers of his generation)
Animation and comics are two different languages, that's true, but this doesn't mean that changes are necessary. Take manga (Japanese comics) as an example: when they are turned into an anime, they are usually adapted sequence by sequence, scene by scene, dialogue by dialogue, word by word. The result of this is often pretty good, so I don't see why it wouldn't work for Barks stories.
So, it is an urban legend that changes are needed when translating a story into another medium: changes can be made, and they may be good or bad, but it's not true at all that changes are necessary.
Sorry for the late answer, I had no time in the last couple of days...
No urban legend. Changes are necessary. Storytelling is the way you tell a story. And first and foremost the language that you use affects that way. The phrase "you don't have to change from comics to animation" makes no sense to me. It is not true that manga are translated sequence by sequence into anime. And even if a certain manga is used as a direct storyboard (and I think that this case occurs veeeeery rarely, if ever), there is much more to be done. Anyway, believe me, good anime are not a matter of animating panel by panel the corresponding manga.
When I talked about manga turned into anime sequence by sequence the example I had in mind was Detective Conan, but I could also name many other examples in which the pages of the manga are basically used as a storyboards, with changes limited to the minimum. If it can be done, then big changes are not necessary by definition.
The point is that, more or less unconsciously, you keep considering the plot as most of the thing. This is shown in the following quote of yours:
Plus, didn't you say yoursalf yesterday that "Sport Goofy in Soccermania" used identical Beagle Boys like in the comics? This shows that, even if the people in charge of DuckTales wanted most episodes to be original stories rather than adaptations of Barks stories (which is a legitimate choice: most of Scrooge's comics published today are original stories rather than reprints of old comics) there was no reason they couldn't keep the Beagle Bloys from the comics. They could change it of course, but we can't say it was necessary to do so.
Here you are taking an irrelevant aspect about some characters and using it to infer something which involves so many and so much morecomplicated aspects.
Let me be clear: hell yeah that anything done by Barks could make an amazing cartoon! Even bad comics can be turned into good animation, so why couldn't great comics like Barks's ones*? But if given in the hands of good animators: people who know their job, who can put their art. And "their" is the main word here. Their art is not something that they can find in Barks's comics.
(*By the way, remember that even before turning into comics, as the main writer of Donald's toons from 1936 to 1942, Barks was already one of the most important animation writers of his generation)
I do think that plot is very important, but at the same time I also regard the way the plot is told as very important. I used the Beagle Boys as an example to illustrate the following concept: the producers could decide to give them different personalities and different designs, and in fact they did that, but nobody will convince me that it was necessary to do so. We may argue whether it was a good or bad choice (I think it was bad), but even if it was a good choice it was still not necessary.
But perhaps our positions are not as different as they seem, since you clearly said that Barks comics can be turned into amazing cartoons, if in the hands of good animators.
I actually like the new design of money bin, it virtually looks better.
On the other hand, that old money bin on killmotor hill is kind of like the representation of Scrooge himself: tough, lonely, stands on top of the social-economical ladder that nobody can approach.
But again, Barks himself moved the bin from place to place. I bet the location of the bin impacts part of the story, the animation team may have a plan on that.
But again, Barks himself moved the bin from place to place. I bet the location of the bin impacts part of the story, the animation team may have a plan on that.
I actually wonder… Obviously, this high-tech Vault couldn't have been built in 1902. So what if Scrooge moved there after a more classical version of his money bin was destroyed? It'd be interesting to see them visit the ruins of the old one in an episode, possibly to retrieve some important document he forgot in the basement or something of the kind.
But again, Barks himself moved the bin from place to place. I bet the location of the bin impacts part of the story, the animation team may have a plan on that.
I actually wonder… Obviously, this high-tech Vault couldn't have been built in 1902. So what if Scrooge moved there after a more classical version of his money bin was destroyed? It'd be interesting to see them visit the ruins of the old one in an episode, possibly to retrieve some important document he forgot in the basement or something of the kind.
Since you mentioned 1902... the show is likely to have some background stories on Scrooge's past, so how do they explain Klondike gold rush? I really hope they don't just put in down and leave the problem there.
Since you mentioned 1902... the show is likely to have some background stories on Scrooge's past, so how do they explain Klondike gold rush? I really hope they don't just put in down and leave the problem there.
I'm on the opposite end of the spectrum. For me, the Klondike gold rush is such a key element of Scrooge's character that it would be a real shame if it doesn't get mentioned. Of course, setting the present in the 1950's would easily solve this problem, but we know they are not doing that.
I really like this Money Bin, tbh. Looks very nice, almost like a Bond villain hideout. I really like that it's an island, it's a nice idea.
Robb, regarding the weather, remember Barks himself had fun with how the weather and climate in Duckburg made no sense and changed as the story needed it- it was near snow mountains, it was near the beach, etc. Probably similar deal here.
They got some really funny ideas. Though I have to say it's hard for me to swallow some of the character designs.
The charm of Gyro's personality is, to me, his shyness. I would rather hope he is not characterized to be a 'mad scientist'. Honestly, why scientists have to be 'mad' in fictions??
And Goldie's design is so different from what we got in comics...
That Gyro certainly looks ugly with those glasses and hair, and Flintheart the fat Scottish is not good either. Gladstone is fine, but Goldie doesn't look like her comic book version (I guess she looks like her previous animated version), and I don't understand the image with the Beagle Boys (open big mouth? something over the mouth? a big chin?); Ma Beagle's son has no numebr, but it may be because of a disguise.
It looks quite strange to me that Goldie's eyes do not connect with her beak but Gladstone's do?
I feel kind of disappointed to see Goldie in the main character list. It just feels so wrong for Scrooge to have money, adventure, family and love, all of them. Because a man just cannot have EVERYTHING. The tragedic ending of his love deepens this character. He makes mistakes, he has regrets. I like Don Rosa's idea that he goes to live with Goldie only after he fakes his own death and forsakes his fortune. He has to give up something in exchange of something more valuable.
And why don't they name their OC 'Bill Beaks'? Afraid of annoying Bill Gates XD?