The red pants jokes were also meant as a stab towards the stupid red shorts Egmont Mickey comics...
Like Monkey_Feyerabend, I also think they are more meta-jokes on how Mickey's old clothes look silly by modern standards, rather than a stab at Egmont's Mickey stories. A similar joke is used in 1987's Paperino e l'insolito remake, written and drawn by Cavazzano, already mentioned in the third post of this thread: in this story, the characters are hired to play themselves in a film version of Gottfredson's Editor-in-Grief and thus not only must wear their old clothes but also employ other tricks to look like their older selves, like wearing full-face masks. Mortie and Ferdie make fun of Mickey's shorts, just like Huey, Dewey and Louie make fun of Donald's face which looks like a carnival mask.
A similar joke is used in 1987's Paperino e l'insolito remake, written and drawn by Cavazzano, already mentioned in the third post of this thread: in this story, the characters are hired to play themselves in a film version of Gottfredson's Editor-in-Grief and thus not only must wear their old clothes but also employ other tricks to look like their older selves, like wearing full-face masks. Mortie and Ferdie make fun of Mickey's shorts, just like Huey, Dewey and Louie make fun of Donald's face which looks like a carnival mask.
What in-story explanation is given as to why they all look so radically different?
What in-story explanation is given as to why they all look so radically different?
It is simply implied that they looked that way when they were younger.
Donald, Mickey and Goofy are told to go to go to the changing room where they would find their costumes. There they find Pete, who tells them that he wil also be an actor, and that he has already changed himself; Mickey comments that his clothes are definitely off-fashion. Pete points to his pegleg and asks Mickey what he thinks about him being asked to wear that, to which Mickey says he doesn't know. While the trio wears their clothes and masks, Mickey says "Ehi! I think I am starting to understand! Of course! Like in the old times! Look, look! Young Donald!" Donald is annoyed because he thinks the thing is ruining his profile, while Goofy has some trouble entering the costume. Anyway, after they shot a few sequences Mickey says he remembers these scenes, to which the director says "Of course! They belong to an old adventure of yours!". Mickey says "Of course! Editor-in-Grief!", and Donald "It's true! Now I'm also remembering!" The story is meta like that, with the director showing the original story and telling that the script is ready because it will be taken directly from it. Most of the humor from the story is from Donald's attempts to get a bigger part. Anyway, at the end the characters go to the cinema to see the movie, and the opening credits say "Walt Disney presents Editor-in-Grief".
Last Edit: Nov 10, 2019 15:01:14 GMT by drakeborough
Post by Baar Baar Jinx on Nov 10, 2019 16:24:44 GMT
Hmm ... hard to say whether this story is breaking the fourth wall or not. Is it implied that the events of "Editor-in-Grief" were part of a fictional story? In any case, in recreating these events, the characters are clearly actors, which is not the kind of story I personally like. ("Editor-in-Grief" is the name Gladstone came up for this particular Gottfredson continuity; I believe in the past that it had been reprinted as the much-less-imaginative "Mickey Mouse Runs a Newspaper". What name did the Italian story in question use?)
Hmm ... hard to say whether this story is breaking the fourth wall or not. Is it implied that the events of "Editor-in-Grief" were part of a fictional story? In any case, in recreating these events, the characters are clearly actors, which is not the kind of story I personally like. ("Editor-in-Grief" is the name Gladstone came up for this particular Gottfredson continuity; I believe in the past that it had been reprinted as the much-less-imaginative "Mickey Mouse Runs a Newspaper". What name did the Italian story in question use?)
IIRC it's Mickey Mouse Runs His Own Newspaper, a title which GeoX rightfully finds charming in its own way, implying as he does a sense of boyish, amateurish but plucky craftiness.
Either way, if I understand this correctly, the idea is that the events of Runs His Own Newspaper actually happened to the characters, simultaneously also existing as a comic story — presumably the story was based on the true events, like Barks's stories are said to be in The Man Who Drew Ducks.
Hmm ... hard to say whether this story is breaking the fourth wall or not. Is it implied that the events of "Editor-in-Grief" were part of a fictional story? In any case, in recreating these events, the characters are clearly actors, which is not the kind of story I personally like. ("Editor-in-Grief" is the name Gladstone came up for this particular Gottfredson continuity; I believe in the past that it had been reprinted as the much-less-imaginative "Mickey Mouse Runs a Newspaper". What name did the Italian story in question use?)
At the beginning of the story, Donald is clearly surprised, even shocked, when he receives a letter in which he is asked to act in a film. When he goes to the movie studio, he seems to be unfamiliar with it: for example, he asks for an indication to find Studio 5, and when an actor dressed in a monster suits answers him, Donald mistakes him for an actual monster. Another person who works there, possibly another actor, comments that he is a rookie who can't appreciate the good of cinema yet. The trio meets there, and Donald says that maybe they were called because the studio needs new faces. Long story short, they are not portrayed as professional actors: Mickey even comments Donald's obvious emotion by saying that for him it's like the first day of school. Also, they are all clearly inexperienced as they forget their lines and do other mistakes.
I used "Editor-in-Grief" in my quick translation of these lines to follow Inducks, but the story actually mentions its Italian name "Topolino giornalista", and the strips that are shown all use an already existing Italian translation. By the way, the alternate English title is "Mickey Mouse Runs His Own Newspaper". You are certainly not alone in disliking that title, since I remember a Gladstone lettercol saying they didn't like that, however it seems not everyone has the same opinion. For example, in his 2012 review of the story, GeoX said:
At any rate, this is an exciting story because it has a real David-and-Goliath feel to it. You'll note that I used the old title for this post. I did this for a reason, and it's not JUST because "Mickey Mouse Runs His Own Newspaper" sounds really funny, whereas "Editor-in-Grief" is just a meaningless pun. The former title really does suggest a little kid getting involved with "adult" issues, and there is indeed a substantial element of that to the story. Just look at that front page: sure, it's full of typos and upside-down photographs and things! But look! We did it! Our own newspaper! Would it REALLY be this, uh, dubiously literate? Maybe not, but presenting it as such really conveys the feel of the thing. There's great attention to detail, and the typos really look like real, legitimate typos.
Anyway, does the story break the fourth wall? I'd say it does. I'll translate some of the dialogues:
MICKEY: Ehi, I remember these scenes! DIRECTOR: Of course! They belong to one of your old adventures! MICKEY: Of course! "Editor-in-Grief"! DONALD: It's true! Now I also remember! PETE: But why... DIRECTOR: Simple! We have decided to make a film out of it! The story is good and eventful! Ideal for cinema! MICKEY: And we will portray... ourselves! DIRECTOR: That's right! Even though I would have preferred more... prepared actors! MICKEY: Eh! Eh! DONALD: And the script? DIRECTOR: Here it is! We will repurpose your story... [He takes a series of comic strips which are then shown in detail in the next panel while characters comments them. Their title is "Topolino giornalista", the Italian name of "Editor-in-Grief"] DIRECTR: ... just as it is! Do you see? It's a film already! MICKEY: Fantastic! OFF-SCREEN VOICES [the focus is on the strips]: "There are also Minnie and Horace!" "Yes, we have contacted them already!" "Look at Pete! What a determination!" PETE: Good times! GOOFY: Not much has changed after all! You have never lost your vice of ending up in jail, and I never lost mine of causing trouble! Yuk! OFF-SCREEN VOICE: And even then, Mickey was a born winner! Eh! Eh!
So, we have the director casually knowing the group's past adventures and even having the strips that tell it, we have Mickey randomly producing "the title" of a past episode of his life which happens to be the same title used in the strip owned by the director... definitely a fourth wall breaking even if they are not shown as professional actors.
Hmm ... hard to say whether this story is breaking the fourth wall or not. Is it implied that the events of "Editor-in-Grief" were part of a fictional story? In any case, in recreating these events, the characters are clearly actors, which is not the kind of story I personally like. ("Editor-in-Grief" is the name Gladstone came up for this particular Gottfredson continuity; I believe in the past that it had been reprinted as the much-less-imaginative "Mickey Mouse Runs a Newspaper". What name did the Italian story in question use?)
Of course it is breaking the 4th wall. It's literally tearing the damn wall down. Mickey and the others literally hold Gottfredson's strips in their hands! (If I remember correctly, don't have my copy of the story here.) Editor-in-grief is referred to as an adventure mickey and co. had in their past and at the same time as a comic. The characters are aware of being comics characters.
By the way, it is a very funny and nicely written story. (And also well drawn, well you know, it is Cavazzano...). Cavazzano was a good writer in the few instances he tried to write the story himself. Much better than the average disney comic writer, in my view.
Of course it is breaking the 4th wall. It's literally tearing the damn wall down. Mickey and the others literally hold Gottfredson's strips in their hands! (If I remember correctly, don't have my copy of the story here.) Editor-in-grief is referred to as an adventure mickey and co. had in their past and at the same time as a comic
Wouldn't all that also be consistent with the Man Who Drew Ducks version where the comics-writers are faithful biographers of real events?
Of course it is breaking the 4th wall. It's literally tearing the damn wall down. Mickey and the others literally hold Gottfredson's strips in their hands! (If I remember correctly, don't have my copy of the story here.) Editor-in-grief is referred to as an adventure mickey and co. had in their past and at the same time as a comic
Wouldn't all that also be consistent with the Man Who Drew Ducks version where the comics-writers are faithful biographers of real events?
Yes, it has the same 'meta-vibes'. But that one is more like a tribute, this one feels a bit more like a story with some kind of (thin) plot.
A related story is the Disney-Dalí one (Gagnor-Cavazzano), that was published a bit everywhere, even in the US. It is related because we get the same trio of Mickey, Goofy and Donald drawn by Cavazzano à la 30's. I personally prefer the one from the 80's, for there are a couple of simple but well-staged gags.
Wouldn't all that also be consistent with the Man Who Drew Ducks version where the comics-writers are faithful biographers of real events?
Yes, it has the same 'meta-vibes'. But that one is more like a tribute, this one feels a bit more like a story with some kind of (thin) plot.
Oh, I didn't mean the two stories were in the same template; I was suggesting that perhaps the Newpsaper story could work in the same meta-but-internally-consistent framework of Floyd Gottfredson & Carl Barks being the biographers of Mickey & Scrooge respectively as Man Who Drew Ducks, rather than to completely break the fourth wall with Mickey & Co. knowing they are comics characters.
Yes, it has the same 'meta-vibes'. But that one is more like a tribute, this one feels a bit more like a story with some kind of (thin) plot.
Oh, I didn't mean the two stories were in the same template; I was suggesting that perhaps the Newpsaper story could work in the same meta-but-internally-consistent framework of Floyd Gottfredson & Carl Barks being the biographers of Mickey & Scrooge respectively as Man Who Drew Ducks, rather than to completely break the fourth wall with Mickey & Co. knowing they are comics characters.
I agree with that notion, I can't remember anything in the story saying that Mickey and gang are aware of being comic characters. They are making a movie based on something that happened in the past.
The red pants jokes were also meant as a stab towards the stupid red shorts Egmont Mickey comics...
Like Monkey_Feyerabend, I also think they are more meta-jokes on how Mickey's old clothes look silly by modern standards, rather than a stab at Egmont's Mickey stories. A similar joke is used in 1987's Paperino e l'insolito remake, written and drawn by Cavazzano, already mentioned in the third post of this thread: in this story, the characters are hired to play themselves in a film version of Gottfredson's Editor-in-Grief and thus not only must wear their old clothes but also employ other tricks to look like their older selves, like wearing full-face masks. Mortie and Ferdie make fun of Mickey's shorts, just like Huey, Dewey and Louie make fun of Donald's face which looks like a carnival mask.
It's proven that Faraci WAS poking fun at the Egmont guys for throwing out the baby (mouse) with the bathwater. There's one story where he clearly alludes to their non-admittance of the Blot's face. The Blot takes off his hood and Pete says, "wait, YOU're The Phantom Blot? Ha ha, how ridiculous".
The Cavazzano story (which I also love) is neither here nor there, as everyone is said to look ridiculous. However, Goofy did not have to strip nude for Egmont's ill-fated "return to the roots", and neither did Horace turn back into a horse, etc., it was only Mickey that was affected. And I'm sure THAT's what Faraci found worth criticizing. I.e. it's not the look that counts, it's the quality of the writing.
The first one feels very much like the Italian version of "A Little Something Special", although it is a little weak on the plot. The second one is my favourite non Barks-Rosa appearence of Glomgold
In the last couple of days I read 9 of Scarpa's early Mickey comics. This is how I would rank them:
1. The Mystery of Tapiocus VI (8/10) 2. The Chirikawa Necklace (7/10) 3. Mickey Mouse in the Delta Dimension (7/10) 4. The Eternal Flame of Kalhoa (6/10) 5. The Fabulous City of Shan-Grilla (6/10) 6. The Phantom Blot's Double Mystery (5/10) - among these 9 this is the only one I had read before 7. The Man from Altacraz (5/10) 8. The Bleep-Bleep 15 (5/10) 9. The Sacred Spring of Seasons Past (5/10)
And The Mystery of Tapiocus VI is probably my favourite non-Rota Italian Disney comic.