Yes, this gag could have been published in the next issue or following one. But, single page gags just went into a pile of ready-to-go single page gags, and were not taken in the order received. Lucky we got to see it at all, given that Uncle Scrooge Comic Books had more and more ads and less and less comics pages as time went on during The Gold Key era, especially after 1963. The "Horse Blinders gag" from 1956, during the Dell period NEVER was printed under Whitman/Dell/Gold Key. So, we were lucky to see this one. I thought Barks' artwork on it looked too "old fashioned" and too good for 1964, and I also wondered why he used him in a gag so late. Now, I know why.
It makes sense. Still, I would think that, even with the occasional out-of-order printing, they would avoid leaving something unpublished for such a long period of time. As for the ads, they are often a problem.
Well, I know all this. (Better: I remember all this now that you tell me, as I tend not to register in my mind these uninteresting details when I read or re-read a Barks' story.)
Too bad you think such details are uninteresting, but to each his own.
When asking about Fethry and Gladstone I was rather referring to the typical post-barks story, where Fethry and Gladstone are treated by Scrooge as 100% nephews, aren't they? Then the discussion about who came up with the adoption thing drove the thing on Barks.
Well, the relationship between Scrooge and Gladstone is modern stories is not dissimilar from Barks, in which Gladstone is basically treated as a nephew even though he is said to be a distant nephew.
On this I insist: no matter if reasonable or not (and no matter if Barks then remained consistent with it), that line was put there in the first place to reinforce the funny exchange between Donald and Gladstone.
To me the fun part of that scene was when they were bragging about their families while debating which of their sides is the superior one, not when they both defined their exact relationship using terms that Barks thought up very carefully so that they made sense and were coherent with each other. That was meant to complete the discussion, as well as showing how they were related to Scrooge: I don't consider that exchange fun in itself.
Having a long-winded, egotistical braggart brag try to show that he's related to a famous person by explaining in heavy detail an extremely distant relationship, is typical of silly braggarts, and thereby ridiculous, ironic and, therefore, funny. I thought that exchange was quite humourous. But, I also knew that Barks used it to show Gladstone's true relationship to Scrooge.
Having a long-winded, egotistical braggart brag try to show that he's related to a famous person by explaining in heavy detail an extremely distant relationship, is typical of silly braggarts, and thereby ridiculous, ironic and, therefore, funny. I thought that exchange was quite humourous. But, I also knew that Barks used it to show Gladstone's true relationship to Scrooge.
Indeed, one thing doesn't exclude the other. For me the whole exchange is fun, while the two panels in which the relationships are explained are not so fun if taken out of context (which is not a bad thing: a good story is not just about gags, it has to have other things as well).
Having a long-winded, egotistical braggart brag try to show that he's related to a famous person by explaining in heavy detail an extremely distant relationship, is typical of silly braggarts, and thereby ridiculous, ironic and, therefore, funny. I thought that exchange was quite humourous. But, I also knew that Barks used it to show Gladstone's true relationship to Scrooge.
Indeed, one thing doesn't exclude the other. For me the whole exchange is fun, while the two panels in which the relationships are explained are not so fun if taken out of context (which is not a bad thing: a good story is not just about gags, it has to have other things as well).
For me, that was one of the best of many ironic, high-brow jokes Barks put into that great story. It was so nice for me to discover that great 1949 Barks story in 1965, after missing it when it was first published. Because I grew up in a house with for older boy cousins, I had inherited ALL the Disney comics from their start in 1940, through the period till late 1951, when my parents first starting buying copies for me, and 1954, when I first started buying them for myself. The only Barks comics I didn't have as a child were the 3 March of Comics give-aways (given at shoe stores in USA), and the one Cheerios give-away (mail-in from cereal box), and the Firestone Christmas Giveaways (given at auto tyre stores.) I was lucky to find all those at Collector's Book Store in Los Angeles in 1965. And there, I met Malcolm Willits, who introduced me to Carl Barks. So, that was important to my life.
There's another episode of the 1950s Disney TV show that dramatizes Donald's creation.
The animators discuss what to call their new character, settling on Donald Drake; then they decide that because it sounds better, they'll "give him his mother's maiden name": Duck.
If this is as canonical as an introduction of Ludwig as Donald's father's brother (coming from the same source), then it would allow for Donald's father to have the name (Von) Drake, with the Ducks of the family on his mother's side. It's totally incongruent with the comics, but the TV shows often are...
Is there a link to this episode on YouTube, by any chance? I'm not sure how to even start searching.
Scrooge MacDuck said:
In his commentaries for The Starstruck Duck in our version of the Don Rosa Library, he says something like "maybe if I'd grown up with the Gottfredson strips rather than the lame comic-books, Mickey could have become a character to me". So this implies he likes Gottfredson, or at least thinks he'd have liked it as a li'l one.
I'm a little surprised that Rosa is not more enthusiastic about Gottfredson, actually. The explanation that he "didn't grow up with them" is insufficient by itself; I've discovered a lot of great writers/artists/franchises in adulthood that I never knew about as a child. Did Rosa ever comment on Segar's Thimble Theater strip?
Post by Baar Baar Jinx on Nov 19, 2017 3:49:34 GMT
Interestingly, the Disney Wiki says this about Ludwig's place on the Duck family tree:
Some 1960s Disney comics (including Tony Strobl's 6-pager Barn Dance Doctor, first published in 1961) state that Ludwig is Grandma Duck's cousin. This relationship was even further established in the German translation of Duckburg, U.S.A (first published in 1961). Here, Grandma reveals that Ludwig is the son of her maternal aunt and a certain Hofrat Von Drake. In contrast to these classic comics, a character profile poster of Ludwig in the German Disney comic magazine Micky Maus Magazin states that he is Grandma Duck's nephew rather than her cousin.
"Duckburg, USA", is, I believe, the story published in the first issue of Ludwig's solo title, which I don't own, but which, it was pointed out earlier on this thread, did not elaborate on Ludwig's exact relationship to the rest of the Duck clan in its original English printing. Is the above wiki entry with regards to the German translation accurate? If so, does anybody know where the German translators got this information? Also, does "Barn Dance Doctor" provide any further details (in what context is the relationship between Grandma and Ludwig brought up)?
And what other changes did I make in Barks old Family Tree? The only other one I can think of is that I eleiminated the business of Gladstone's parents dying from overeating at a free picnic, so he was never adopted by $crooge's sister Matilda. I saw no purpose behind such a "plot twist" which would have been very hard to get included in a comic book. Unfortunately, this left Matilda an "old maid"; I wanted to have her married to Ludwig Von Drake; I like Ludwig and that would be the ONLY way he could actually be a relative of Donald. But I was vetoed by everyone from Bob Foster to Carl Barks on that one... so poor Matilda is still an old maid. (Actually, she'd be DEAD by now, anyhow. $crooge is the last McDuck alive.)
I just realized the importance of something that has been glossed over until now: Rosa admitted on multiple occasions that Carl Barks himself vetoed the idea of Ludwig being married to Matilda. That settles the issue once and for all for me: even apart from Barks' creator-status with regards to the Duck Universe, he created Matilda, and if he said she's not married to Ludwig, then she's not married to Ludwig. Barks trumps Rosa! (Rosa stated elsewhere that the change to Gladstone's history, with regards to his parents dying and his being adopted by Matilda, was made with Barks' input and agreement.)
And what other changes did I make in Barks old Family Tree? The only other one I can think of is that I eleiminated the business of Gladstone's parents dying from overeating at a free picnic, so he was never adopted by $crooge's sister Matilda. I saw no purpose behind such a "plot twist" which would have been very hard to get included in a comic book. Unfortunately, this left Matilda an "old maid"; I wanted to have her married to Ludwig Von Drake; I like Ludwig and that would be the ONLY way he could actually be a relative of Donald. But I was vetoed by everyone from Bob Foster to Carl Barks on that one... so poor Matilda is still an old maid. (Actually, she'd be DEAD by now, anyhow. $crooge is the last McDuck alive.)
I just realized the importance of something that has been glossed over until now: Rosa admitted on multiple occasions that Carl Barks himself vetoed the idea of Ludwig being married to Matilda. That settles the issue once and for all for me: even apart from Barks' creator-status with regards to the Duck Universe, he created Matilda, and if he said she's not married to Ludwig, then she's not married to Ludwig. Barks trumps Rosa! (Rosa stated elsewhere that the change to Gladstone's history, with regards to his parents dying and his being adopted by Matilda, was made with Barks' input and agreement.)
On most issues I might agree with this principle, but I wouldn't say that Barks created Matilda as a character--he put the name on a sketched family tree, right? He didn't write any stories with her. In my mind, Rosa created both Matilda and Hortense as characters.
And what other changes did I make in Barks old Family Tree? The only other one I can think of is that I eleiminated the business of Gladstone's parents dying from overeating at a free picnic, so he was never adopted by $crooge's sister Matilda. I saw no purpose behind such a "plot twist" which would have been very hard to get included in a comic book. Unfortunately, this left Matilda an "old maid"; I wanted to have her married to Ludwig Von Drake; I like Ludwig and that would be the ONLY way he could actually be a relative of Donald. But I was vetoed by everyone from Bob Foster to Carl Barks on that one... so poor Matilda is still an old maid. (Actually, she'd be DEAD by now, anyhow. $crooge is the last McDuck alive.)
I just realized the importance of something that has been glossed over until now: Rosa admitted on multiple occasions that Carl Barks himself vetoed the idea of Ludwig being married to Matilda. That settles the issue once and for all for me: even apart from Barks' creator-status with regards to the Duck Universe, he created Matilda, and if he said she's not married to Ludwig, then she's not married to Ludwig. Barks trumps Rosa! (Rosa stated elsewhere that the change to Gladstone's history, with regards to his parents dying and his being adopted by Matilda, was made with Barks' input and agreement.)
I agree with what Matilda said; and also, I don't think Barks accepted Ludwig at all, married to Matilda or otherwise, and believe that's why he rejected Rosa's suggestion. To have Ludwig at all is already going against Barks's wishes, so he might as well be married to Matilda.
I just realized the importance of something that has been glossed over until now: Rosa admitted on multiple occasions that Carl Barks himself vetoed the idea of Ludwig being married to Matilda. That settles the issue once and for all for me: even apart from Barks' creator-status with regards to the Duck Universe, he created Matilda, and if he said she's not married to Ludwig, then she's not married to Ludwig. Barks trumps Rosa! (Rosa stated elsewhere that the change to Gladstone's history, with regards to his parents dying and his being adopted by Matilda, was made with Barks' input and agreement.)
I agree with what Matilda said; and also, I don't think Barks accepted Ludwig at all, married to Matilda or otherwise, and believe that's why he rejected Rosa's suggestion. To have Ludwig at all is already going against Barks's wishes, so he might as well be married to Matilda.
Actually, in a response to Don Rosa's letter about his concepts of a Duck family tree (published in Geoffrey Blum's article "Raiders of the Lost Barks"), Carl Barks reminded Rosa of Ludwig being Donald's uncle, and did not express any dislike of the character; he certainly wouldn't have gone out of his way to make Rosa aware of the character and make sure he was in the family tree if he didn't like Ludwig. Plus, unlike Rosa, Barks did not work with a "canon"/"timeline", so he certainly would never have rejected Ludwig as a character (the way Rosa did with Fethry, for example). Barks simply didn't like the idea of him being married to Matilda (which is not covered in those letters, but Rosa has said it himself).
Anyway, on the topic of Ludwig: he'll appear in tomorrow's DT epsiode, and from a supposed screenshot that was uploaded to the Disney Wiki, it turns out that they're using the old, present-day version of Ludwig as Scrooge's scientist during the 1960s, rather than a younger version. I guess I shouldn't have expected the show to have any respect for the character anyway. Also definite proof that the art style is not reminiscent of Milt Kahl's artwork, as this is the most off-model Ludwig I have ever seen in my life. Sigh...
Last Edit: Jul 6, 2018 12:53:17 GMT by Scroogerello
Anyway, on the topic of Ludwig: he'll appear in tomorrow's DT epsiode, and from a supposed screenshot that was uploaded to the Disney Wiki, it turns out that they're using the old, present-day version of Ludwig as Scrooge's scientist during the 1960s, rather than a younger version. I guess I shouldn't have expected the show to have any respect for the character anyway. Also definite proof that the art style is not reminiscent of Milt Kahl's artwork, as this is the most off-model Ludwig I have ever seen in my life. Sigh...
Looks like I was wrong about Carl Barks's feelings on Ludwig. Huh.
Concerning his appearance in Confidential Casefiles: I'm disappointed in his being a past-character too (looks like he'll be S.H.U.S.H.'s version of Q, possibly?), but I don't see what looks that off-model about him to you. In fact I think he looks amazing. Not quite like in the originals (they removed some of the finer details, likely for budget reasons; detailed animation is expensive), but he still looks pretty daln close to me. Much moreso than he did in House of Mouse, for one thing, so even if the small level of departure is too much for you I don't see how he could the "most off-model Ludwig" you've ever seen.
Concerning his appearance in Confidential Casefiles: I'm disappointed in his being a past-character too (looks like he'll be S.H.U.S.H.'s version of Q, possibly?), but I don't see what looks that off-model about him to you. In fact I think he looks amazing. Not quite like in the originals (they removed some of the finer details, likely for budget reasons; detailed animation is expensive), but he still looks pretty daln close to me. Much moreso than he did in House of Mouse, for one thing, so even if the small level of departure is too much for you I don't see how he could the "most off-model Ludwig" you've ever seen.
Classic:
DuckTales 2017:
House of Mouse:
In the reboot, the entire essence of his character design is lost, and it seems they just drew Scrooge with different clothes (clearly due to an unfamiliarity with the character). In his actual design, Ludwig has a pot belly, very loose fitting clothes, actual eyelids above his eyes, a larger/wider forhead, much larger, rounder glasses (that are supposed to be much further away from his eyes), the upper part of his beak is supposed to overlap with the lower part on one side, with his beak intended to look significantly different from the other ducks (the beak is thicker in the front), his whiskers are supposed to be much pointier and more messy. Also he is not supposed to have pie-cut pupils. DT'17's Ludwig "Scrooge with a different coat" Von Drake got all that wrong (and probably much more, as this image only show part of the character), while House of Mouse's Ludwig design has all of that correct, although naturally not as detailed as the original 1960s films (also, you did get one of the worst looking shots from the show. If you check other shorts like "Time Reverser", you'll see that they probably had the most on-model Ludwig since the original films, although I think Quack Pack came pretty close, as well).
In the reboot, the entire essence of his character design is lost, and it seems they just drew Scrooge with different clothes (clearly due to an unfamiliarity with the character). In his actual design, Ludwig has a pot belly, very loose fitting clothes, actual eyelids above his eyes, a larger/wider forhead, much larger, rounder glasses (that are supposed to be much further away from his eyes), the upper part of his beak is supposed to overlap with the lower part on one side, with his beak intended to look significantly different from the other ducks (the beak is thicker in the front), his whiskers are supposed to be much pointier and more messy. Also he is not supposed to have pie-cut pupils. DT'17's Ludwig "Scrooge with a different coat" Von Drake got all that wrong (and probably much more, as this image only show part of the character), while House of Mouse's Ludwig design has all of that correct, although naturally not as detailed as the original 1960s films (also, you did get one of the worst looking shots from the show. If you check other shorts like "Time Reverser", you'll see that they probably had the most on-model Ludwig since the original films, although I think Quack Pack came pretty close, as well).
Some of these are fair (good call on the glasses), but I don't see the costume issue. This looks to be Ludwig's usual jacket. Again, maybe a few details have changed here and there, but it's far closer than the HoM white outfit.
And how can you tell whether he has a pot-belly when his belly (pot or otherwise) is hidden by the desk in this screenshot? As for his messier whiskers, that was among the stuff I assumed they'd cut detail on for budget reasons. And I think his beak is bigger than Scrooge's in the screenshot, and his skull shape is different.
Concerning HoM, maybe they got it right some of the time, but their drawing his beak all wrong (giving it an "upper lip" like Donald or Scrooge's and making it shorter) was much, much more than a one-off thing.
I just realized the importance of something that has been glossed over until now: Rosa admitted on multiple occasions that Carl Barks himself vetoed the idea of Ludwig being married to Matilda. That settles the issue once and for all for me: even apart from Barks' creator-status with regards to the Duck Universe, he created Matilda, and if he said she's not married to Ludwig, then she's not married to Ludwig. Barks trumps Rosa! (Rosa stated elsewhere that the change to Gladstone's history, with regards to his parents dying and his being adopted by Matilda, was made with Barks' input and agreement.)
On most issues I might agree with this principle, but I wouldn't say that Barks created Matilda as a character--he put the name on a sketched family tree, right? He didn't write any stories with her. In my mind, Rosa created both Matilda and Hortense as characters.
I agree, and have always said, that Matilda and Hortense (as well as Quackmore) are essentially Rosa characters (which is why I was unhappy that DuckTales '17 did not use the Rosa designs for them, and delighted that LTC did), but the idea that Scrooge has a sister named Matilda is Barks', and I feel his objection to Ludwig being married to her deserves to be respected. Especially now that we have learned that Barks does acknowledge Ludwig's existence and wanted him on the tree, just not in that capacity. There are of course several other reasons why Ludwig and Matilda should not be married based on previously established facts, which have been discussed elsewhere on this thread. But to me this is the clincher.
As to that screenshot of Ludwig from DuckTales '17, I don't mind the design, which is actually pretty good considering the way other characters look, but it's ridiculous that old Ludwig is being used with young(er) Scrooge. They have always been portrayed as of the same generation.
Remember barks is not rosa and always seemed more aware he didn't get to fully call the shots on this stuff even just at a personal level. If he'd known of her at the time he'd definitely have used Brigitta, he used Ludwig even if only once, grandma duck, Gus goose, etc. I don't think he'd ever go "I don't want this character in my tree".
Remember barks is not rosa and always seemed more aware he didn't get to fully call the shots on this stuff even just at a personal level. If he'd known of her at the time he'd definitely have used Brigitta, he used Ludwig even if only once, grandma duck, Gus goose, etc. I don't think he'd ever go "I don't want this character in my tree".
Did Barks write the gag that included Ludwig, or just draw it? In any case, I've read that Barks used Ludwig there at the suggestion of the Disney Studio that was trying to popularize him, not out of any affinity for the character. As mentioned above, it was hardly an inspired use of Ludwig.
