Rosa's stories are full of little "nuances" with the characters staring at the reader/"camera" with "you've gotta be kidding me" looks, indicating they're fully aware they're before an audience. That's fine for Bugs or Daffy, but Duckburgians? No.
I don't know… what with it happening so much in cartoon, "unimpressed aside glances" have become something of a common gesture. I know I do it sometimes. I don't think they necessarily denote a trye breaking of the fourth wall. It's like in movies when a character is staring at the camera during a monologue even if there's not supposed to be anybody in front of them in that direction — it's a storytelling trick to convey the mood better, not a "gag".
Rosa's stories are full of little "nuances" with the characters staring at the reader/"camera" with "you've gotta be kidding me" looks, indicating they're fully aware they're before an audience. That's fine for Bugs or Daffy, but Duckburgians? No.
Aaaaaahh ok. Now it's clear what you mean. In the previous post you talked about 'meta', and that was a bit confusing, since watching into the camera is not really considered meta-anything, like an actual 4th wall break is. Anyhow, you are definitely right in pointing this as one of the less 'Disneyan' technical aspect in Rosa's stories! Well spotted, sir. Personally I like it. But I must admit that I do not read any other comics having this feature, if not sporadically.So I am perfectly ok with that injected into Disney by one author. Notice that sometimes this 'looking into the camera' panels are the natural conclusion of an instant-to-instant* gag, which is the real peculiar comic technique exploited massively by Rosa.
I have a broad understanding of "meta" that includes a tone wherein the characters are aware they're in a fictional work, even if it's just a "you gotta be kidding me glance" to the reader. Some kind of innocence gets lost and it's why I have a hard time accepting Rosa as Barks' equal/successor...
Post by Monkey_Feyerabend on Aug 15, 2017 8:08:20 GMT
And indeed Rosa is not at all a successor of Barks. His comics are not related to Barks's ones, if not a bit in his very first stories. Rosa managed the language in a way which is not only different, but in many aspects even opposite to the style of Barks. People who speak of Rosa as someone making stories in the continuity of Barks either do not understand even the basics of comics or are superficial readers who only take into account shallow aspects and forget to look at the heart of the thing. Or both. (These people are a lot, I know. And possibly a few of them write of comics for work. Well, whatever.)
To be clear, this independence from Barks is one of the great thing of Rosa, according to me. In not giving much of a WAK in the way duck comics were written before him (even by his idol Barks) Rosa draws near Barks' greatness. Of course, I would not call him equal to Barks neither. Rosa put together different ingredients already existing in the wide world of humor and adventurous comics, coming up with a very good formula, which he managed to execute masterfully. But Barks...well...Barks seems to be on another planet. He did not invent just a formula for putting down Donald Duck comics. He invented the ingredients. The way Barks was able to create humor along his storytelling is something that he took out of nowhere. Not from other comics, at least. (I do not know of any humor comics in the 40's similar to Barks's ones...and even if there were, did he read them? Most probably not.) Arguably Barks changed the language itself, something that very few people did in the history of comics. (I guess that Rosa himself would agree on most I am stating in this post )
"Night of the Living Text". Literally the entire story is about how they live in a comic book and the caption boxes have revolted against the characters.
I don't know… what with it happening so much in cartoon, "unimpressed aside glances" have become something of a common gesture. I know I do it sometimes.
You mean you look at an imaginary audience/camera when exasperated in real life? Or you have characters do that in your work? (Genuine question, I couldn't tell from the wording.)
I don't know… what with it happening so much in cartoons, "unimpressed aside glances" have become something of a common gesture. I know I do it sometimes.
You mean you look at an imaginary audience/camera when exasperated in real life? Or you have characters do that in your work? (Genuine question, I couldn't tell from the wording.)
Post by Scrooge MacDuck on Sept 21, 2018 16:04:47 GMT
Interesting find! I suppose he could be speaking to Tabby or Bolivar, but that's stretching it. Or maybe Phooey materialized off-screen and he's bringing him up to date.
Also, though it's not a comic story, I feel compelled to mention Plane Crazy (the 1991 stage musical, not the 1928 Mickey cartoon), which ends with the pantomime-esque deus ex machina of the audience loudly relaying secret information (earlier spoken by the villains) to the heroes.
Rosa's stories are full of little "nuances" with the characters staring at the reader/"camera" with "you've gotta be kidding me" looks, indicating they're fully aware they're before an audience. That's fine for Bugs or Daffy, but Duckburgians? No.
I honestly can't think of a single instance of this execpt for the two mentioned in this thread...
Rosa's stories are full of little "nuances" with the characters staring at the reader/"camera" with "you've gotta be kidding me" looks, indicating they're fully aware they're before an audience. That's fine for Bugs or Daffy, but Duckburgians? No.
I don't know… what with it happening so much in cartoon, "unimpressed aside glances" have become something of a common gesture. I know I do it sometimes. I don't think they necessarily denote a trye breaking of the fourth wall. It's like in movies when a character is staring at the camera during a monologue even if there's not supposed to be anybody in front of them in that direction — it's a storytelling trick to convey the mood better, not a "gag".
Yes, sideway glances are not "looking at the reader", it's just the way many people react to certain situations, myself included.
Post by crazycatlord on Sept 23, 2018 22:39:52 GMT
In "The Great Snow Job", Professor Nefarious says to his "students" that they will stay outside at the snow in the Himalayas, while he will stay at the hotel; they ask him "Where it is written that we have to stay in the mountains while you stay in the hotel?"; Nefarius shows them the book with the story itself and says "It is written at the page hundred and seventy six" (happening this at the page 176 of the book - this changes in every different edition of the story, of course); then the students say "he is right".
[Not totally off-topic question, there is any way of showing images without an external link?]
Last Edit: Sept 23, 2018 22:40:09 GMT by crazycatlord